TodgeRodge

yes because important topics like higher education and the long term direction of a 36K student university should be left to +1 and and no one should read a state funded study specifically dealing with law schools and the need for a new one when talking about the specific law school that prompted the study

yes not only have I seen data.....I have seen data right from the THECB.....and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics so yes I do 100% think those that wanted to start the UNT dallas college of law are idiots they did plenty of pre-planning and pre-studying on the law school and 100% of that came back and told them there was no need for an additional law school in Texas and especially in the dfw metromess......and they ignored 100% of that and the THECB would not have approved the law school......but in The State of Texas if the legislators create, approve, and fund something then it becomes out of the control of the THECB as far as being approved or not please do a quick study of legal employment now and into the future...law firms are starting to out source work to India as we speak and this will only further crush the legal hiring environment.....only the top students from the top 15 or 20 law schools still have any certain chance of getting a legal job that will pay their loans and allow them to live.....the rest are fighting for scraps.....UNT will start out as the lowest tier of law school and it will stay that way for the foreseeable future.....because it is going to be very poorly funded, it will have horrible facilities, and it is going to be located in an area that already attracts a great deal of top flight law school graduates from in and out of state SMU has plenty of financial aid available for any QUALIFIED student.....I believe that TWU law offers 100% tuition deferral for students.....so cost is not an obstacle to legal education in Texas.....unless you are a very marginal applicant http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/files/dmfile/IVJFeasibilityofEstablisihingaPublicLawSchool.pdf The supply of Texas law school graduates and lawyers imported from other states appears to be more than sufficient to meet the current demand for new lawyers in Texas. There were 1,837 attorneys who passed the Texas Bar exam in 2009, and the Texas Workforce Commission projects 1,660 new lawyers will be hired per year through 2016. Texas has fewer lawyers per 100,000 population (303) than the median of the 10 most populous states (328), although the major urban areas of Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Austin exceed this median. The number of duplicated applications to Texas law schools declined 11 percent since 2004. While there is no standard for an ideal ratio of lawyers to population, in 2009 the Texas average of 303 lawyers per 100,000 population was lower than the average of the 10 most populous states (328). However, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that Texas as a whole is in immediate need of more lawyers now or in the near future, although there are certainly rural areas of Texas that are underserved. Over the next five years, the number of lawyers is projected to grow at a faster rate than the increase in population.3 Since the number of law school graduates exceeds the number of projected annual job openings, this expanding workforce need is likely to be met even though the number of law school graduates in Texas is not keeping pace with population growth. The Coordinating Board does not recommend the creation of a new law school at this time. Existing public law schools have the capacity to expand enrollments and provide greater opportunities for students from all regions of the state and across all demographic groups. Like many other professions, the legal profession has changed drastically in the last several years. It, too, is a casualty of the recession. Many large firms have lain off associates and even partners, while many others have delayed making offers to newly minted lawyers. As Thomas Morgan puts it in his 2010 The Vanishing American Lawyer, “(M)any lawyers now have doubts about their economic future … Over 4,000 lawyers—some of them experienced partners—have lost their positions at major American firms in 2009. Job offers to many 2009 law graduates have been „deferred‟ to a later, unspecified date. Law firm partners have tried to keep their own earnings steady, but as the chair of one firm put it, „We can‟t beat the donkeys any harder.‟ In short says another writer wryly, „a law degree isn‟t necessarily a license to print money these days.‟” These gloomy anecdotal accounts are borne out by the United States Department of Labor‟s Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics currently projects that although there will be a 13 percent growth in the number of jobs for lawyers between 2008 and 2018, “Competition for job openings should continue to be keen because of the large number of students graduating from law school each year.”9 At the same time the number of students increases, demand is likely to decline for discretionary legal services such as planning estates, drafting wills, and handling real estate transactions due to “do it yourself” websites and publications that walk consumers through the steps to complete these basic legal services. Corporations are also less likely to litigate cases when declining sales and profits restrict their budgets, and “growth in demand for lawyers will be constrained as businesses increasingly use large accounting firms and paralegals to perform some of the same functions that lawyers do.”10 As a result, much of the projected job growth will be “concentrated in salaried jobs as businesses and all levels of government employ a growing number of staff attorneys.” Fewer lucrative positions as associates or partners will be open, and more graduates will be forced to take lower-paying salaried positions at organizations other than legal firms and the public sector or even lower-paying contract positions. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also notes that the “number of self-employed lawyers is expected to grow slowly, reflecting the difficulty of establishing a profitable new practice in the face of competition from larger, established law firms.” And, although more lawyers may become involved in offering services as contract employees, the profitability of these services is small compared to the earnings that attorneys in independent practice or the corporate setting might make. The silver lining of this economy for the legal profession, however, is that “during recessions, for example, individuals and corporations face other legal problems, such as bankruptcies, foreclosures, and divorces—all requiring legal action.”11 Graduates with superior academic records from highly regarded law schools will have the best job opportunities. Perhaps as a result of competition for attorney positions, lawyers are increasingly finding work in less traditional areas for which legal trainings is an asset, but not normally a requirement. As in the past, some graduates may have to accept positions outside of their field of interest or for which they feel overqualified. Some recent law school graduates who have been unable to find permanent positions are turning to the growing number of temporary staffing firms that place attorneys in short-term jobs.12 The applicant growth at Texas institutions is not uniform, however; between 2000 and 2009 all nine Texas law schools experienced significant growth in the number of applications, ranging from 36 percent growth at The University of Texas at Austin to 127 percent growth at Texas Southern University. However, when application trends are looked at for the last two years worth of available data, 2007-2009, a very different trend emerges. During this period, four of the nine Texas law schools actually experienced decreases in applications while the remaining schools experienced only slight increases (see Figure 5). 21 This indicates a strong possibility that fewer students are currently interested in attending law school in Texas. The Coordinating Board does not recommend the creation of a new law school at this time. Existing public law schools have the capacity to expand enrollments and provide greater opportunities for students from all regions of the state and across all demographic groups here is more reading http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1887270,00.html

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show I see UH with $3,537,318 in student fees and $8,900,000 in direct institutional support for a total of $12,437,318 I see UNT with $4,315,679 in student fees and this is before the $7 kicks in (although most if not all that 4 million will probably be replaced) and with the $7 fee UNT will be closer to or just above $7 million in student fees UH has a much larger endowment and that is probably where a large portion of the 8.9 million comes from since state funding can't be used and tuition would more than likely be listed as student fees so your numbers seem a bit off

lack of leadership especially long term stable leadership using the resources of the Denton campus to squander on failed dallas economic development projects lack of concern on the Denton campus for science and engineering programs and lack of proper funding for them lack of any attempts to ever raise outside funds knee jerk, poorly planned, "hey lets give this a shot", uncoordinated, and wasteful allocation of available resources

1. UNT has a goal for their endowment.....they want it to be 215.4 million BY 2020......never mind that the HB51 "tier 1" criteria (one criteria out of 6 with 4 of the 6 needing to be met along with the required 45 million in restricted research UNT is at 17 million in total research currently some of that is not dollars that would count under restricted research) UNT currently has no actual plan in place as to how they will add $125 million over the next 10 years to the endowment, but at least they have set a goal if only a very marginal one 2. the law school is going to be a disaster for UNT......it already is a disaster for UNT.....the THECB did a study and that study clearly stated there is zero need for additional law schools in Texas and if there was a need for a new law school in Texas it would be in South Texas not the DFW area.....dallas HAS NOT come through with the needed dollars to renovate the exterior of the building they were going to donate to UNT and I doubt the will......this is the reason that UNT is going to PAY THEMSELVES (that means you students in Denton) to renovate some of the upper floors of the UCD to start law classes there......this was part of the dispute that Dr. B and worthless jackson had.......Dr. B and the President of TAMU-Commerce do not like the way the UCD is being run by worthless and they told worthless that they wanted to pull out of the UCD and then UNT could use the current space in the UCD to hold law classes and there would be no need to spend (waste) additional student and state dollars to renovate more floors of the UCD that would be left vacant if and when UNT law moved to the building they are suppose to use.....UNT does not have the dollars to renovate the interior of that building as well so even if dallas did renovate the exterior it is questionable if UNT would be able to renovate the interior in the near or longer term also many of you may not realize this, but short of initial start up cost the law school will need to be entirely SELF FUNDING......The State of Texas will make no funding contributions towards the running of the UNT law school.....this WILL be an issue because I see no way it will be self funding.....which means Denton students will probably pay for it.....although I am of the belief the law school will be quietly killed off for good in the next legislative session when no additional start up funding beyond the current 5 million that was allocated in the past will be made available not to mention the horrible state of legal employment currently and for the LONG TERM FUTURE in Texas and the USA 3. if winning football really mattered long term for the endowment then UTD wuld not have a 275 million dollar endowment and TxState would not have the same endowment as UNT 4. the engineering programs at UNT are massively underfunded and they have a hard time attracting and more importantly retaining faculty.....just go look at their web pages, count the faculty members in each department and then go to the college of engineering websites for any university you feel is comparable to UNT and do the same...and remember it is hard to promote things when you are looking to possibly cut one of them again.....like the construction ETEC program

1. where did I say UNT had no commitment to athletics? 2. the things you listed while nice.....are singular pieces....sure there was a "plan" for the denia area......but it was clearly not well defined and not long term when first implemented because if it had been there would have been a firm plan for the stadium portion of that area before the AC was built.....not after it was built and then scrapping that stadium plan and going with another.....if there had been a plan there would have been a firm date in place to start stadium construction when the AC was being built......not several years of next to no real news about the stadium, what it would cost, how it would be paid for, what it would hold, and when it would start being built.......you do remember those years of discussion on this forum don't you.......when long term highly vocal UNT athletics supporters were growing extremely restless because they say nothing being done on any of that.....there was a website with a couple of small conception drawings and that was not even how the stadium ended up being......they built the AC before they even knew if they were going to get student approval on the athletics fee.......you do remember the single largest athletics donor for UNT publicly stating he had tossed in the towel because of lack of progress and because of lack of communication about what the plans and progress were......this was a very wealthy (though unfortunately probably declining in wealth) NON-UNT AFFILIATED donor that had written checks for over a million in the past.....he was the one that got the ball rolling on the stadium design......you do remember him walking away from that don't you.......many would blame that on RV.....I can see why....I personally blame it on the fact that RV repeatedly became tired of making a statement with the full support of the UNT administration......and then after publicly hanging it all out there.....he had the rug pulled from under him with a change in direction......so RV finally just stopped making those statements until something was finally agreed upon 3. the Business building, Bio building, are nothing more than a product of student growth and state formula funding....it was not because of any long term plan or alumni support or anything else....it was just the bare min that all public schools get when their enrollment allows them an increase in formula funding for buildings and infrastructure.....how long was that business building in the plans for......how many incarnations did it go through before something was finally done hell have posted a link in the past from a high level UNT meeting that UNT considered using the old Radisson Hotel for the college business....I believe it was from 2008 which was a couple of years after they had been talking about a new business building '''http://www.unt.edu/president/features/Strategic Planning/Strategic Plan for UNT Facilities.doc''''' (you will probably have to cut and paste into your browser and a .doc will open) there is the link...it is a 5 year plan.....in this "plan" they talk about a new business building by 2008 for 50 million.....then further down they talk about possibly needing the Radisson to put the college of business in Purchase Radisson Hotel and Conference Center gggggg. Need: This property is needed if the College of Business is located at Eagle Point and the School of Hospitality and Merchandising moves to the Radisson building hhhhhh. Cost: $7,000,000 iiiiii. Schedule: June 2005 jjjjjj. Status: Requires Board reapproval, TRB for College of Business and willing sellers how many of the things on that list are done......how many were even started before they were suppose to be finished......hell they have wanted to tear down the college inn for 3 decades and I believe it still sits there rotting away.....if they aren't careful some asshat will get it labeled a historic landmark and it will stay forever and ever again look at all those things and the dates and times and then look at what was actually done....not a lot of following the plan going on 4. the research park was over priced they should have been able to get TI to donate that property instead of paying more than anyone else public or private was willing to pay for it.....the faculty in the programs located at the research park hate being out there, it divides academic programs off the main campus which I am against because I believe a college experience is a collection of experiences not just a list of classes you take and when a program is off the main campus it takes away from that experience......which is why I and many will always frown on online degrees in all but a few subjects and for all but a few people (like those that need a piece of paper to move up in an existing job)......the research park is woefully underutilized and again there is no clear plan for it 5. the dorms are nice, but many of them have been built with private money and are privately managed and that has lead to some student dissatisfaction with those dorms and I believe UNT had to step in and take over the management of at least one if not two of them to help clear it up in the last 10 years what I have seen UNT do is play a large game of catch up to get to the base level of universities that UNT considers themselves similar to.....while those universities also continued to move ahead http://www.dentonrc.com/s/dws/img/drc/04-10/0402untstrategic.pdf here.....another plan from April 2010 (although now we hear one of the main things that VLR will do is make a new plan and incorporate parts of a bunch of old plans into this new plan)......so at least UNT has a plan plan!.....now if only had confidence the new guy would stay around to actually implement the plan or that UNT would be able to land a real leader in the future when their job will be to implement someone elses plan.....or maybe they will make a new plan lets investigate the plan above basically it wants to realign a bunch arts and liberal arts type programs and take the savings from that to increase research.....when The State of Texas formula funding for faculty positions does not fund arts and liberal arts programs at near the level that it funds engineering, pharmacy, and STEM programs......which means UNT will see very little increase in state dollars to help them move faculty lines from arts and liberal arts over to STEM programs....which means you will be trying to hire STEM faculty with huge start up needs based on liberal arts and arts funding......which has very small start up needs they have been talking to the ARL for 2 years about how to become a member....but they make no mention of where or how the money will be found to do that.....the goal is 2015 right on page 51 it clearly states that the THECB required goal of 400 million in endowment IS NOT FEASIBLE in the next 5 years......then from the time line laid out it does not seem feasible in 10 years from now....in fact barely half of the THECB requirement is feasible for UNT in the next 10 years......why is that......why can't UNT get their endowment TEN YEARS FROM NOW to the level UTD is at today......much less that Texas Tech has raised 600 million over the last 7 years and plans to raise 400 million over the next 3......while not all of that goes right to the endowment a great deal of it will.....and the Tech and UH endowments are currently twice the amount that UNT has plans for theirs to be IN ANOTHER 10 YEARS basically the goal for UNT from this "plan" is to go from the same endowment as TxState today (about 90 million) and over 10 years they will just barely double it to 215 million......which will still be 185 million short of the goals for the "tier 1" funding......true there are 6 criteria and only 4 of the 6 need to be met in addition to meeting the 45 million in research......but I find it impossible that UNT will make that initial and "must be met" 45 million in research when their plan is to shift liberal arts and arts faculty lines to STEM lines......and when their plan is to raise paltry amounts of external dollars to do so.....because Texas does not fund research faculty positions.....they don't fund half time faculty that can spend their other time on research.....and they don't fund start up cost for research faculty, and they don't fund graduate students all that well to actually do the heavy lifting look at the first "plan" I posted......look at the time lines, the fact that so many were MISSED or have not even been started, look at the second plan I posted.....not even a year old......and being tossed out.....along with the leader that oversaw it.....look at the "goals" if you can even call most of them that.....look at the total lack of discussion about where and how the money will be made available and look at where UNT stands today compared to the other 6 emerging research universities and then look at where UNT expects to be in 10 years from now.....basically in 10 years from now UNT is still planning to be well behind UH, UTD, and Tech in any and all "tier 1" goals and metrics and basically UNT plans to be about where UH, Tech, and UTD are TODAY on many of those goals.....and that is 5 or ten years from now......and they "plan" on getting there with less external dollars than those universities are availing themselves of TODAY forgive me if I am a bit underwhelmed and if I believe I have seen much of this before.....shifting plans, unmet deadlines, lack of acceptance that outside fund raising is critical for university advancement, lack of understanding that moving faculty lines around especially from arts and liberal arts to STEM programs is hard to do and leaves you in a funding pinch to get quality STEM faculty.....talk of adding programs that are not a good match with the overall university like a Pharmacology program or Bio Engineering when UNT is associated with a OSTEOPATHIC (holistic primary care) hospital not a medical research hospital....and UNT woefully under funds their engineering programs as it is......and is considering folding one.....that they cut once in the past because it was not going to be ABET accredited....then they opened it back up again in the ETEC department......only to just recently talk about folding it again.....because it will not obtain ABET accrediation the progress that UNT has made came on the backs of enrollment increases and enrollment increases are only going to allow UNT to progress at the same level they are at today.....not to ADVANCE.....and I see nothing in the plan (that is about to be scrapped for a new one) that tells me UNT is going to do anything, but try and shift a few dollars around here and there and cross their fingers

ISU is already in the Big 12.....though where after that is an unknown.....I would hope your AD and university admins have a long term plan to address that issue ISU is a land grant school in a state that only has 3 public universities.....there the same number of D1-A programs in the dfw metromess as there are in the entire state of Iowa......plus all the pro sports.....North Texas is a Normal College (like UNI) and after that they they still stuck with arts and liberal arts for the most part until about the last 2 decades ISU has been a member of a major conference for decades ISU can bring 40K+ fans to their stadium consistently kids growing up in Iowa have 3 public universities to choose from....kids in Texas have 30+ public universities to choose from 3 public universities play D1-A ball in Iowa......in a couple of years 12 will in Texas in short a bounce house and a better Dot race is not going to cut it to draw in the DFW metro area fans or to capture the attention of many others

there would be a "green" aspect to the plan I have.....wind and some solar....it would be for a specific aspect of the plan and would have a research and potential donor/sponsor focus

1. have a plan but it is difficult to articulate on a message board....I am 99% sure most on here would mock it mainly because it came from me and also because they would not like some of the associations and they would not see the synergies of some of the parts of the plan.....they would not like how long it would take and they would probably not like the fact that it was dealing with getting groups from dozens to hundreds maybe a few per game and maybe a dozen total of those year in and year out.....it would not be anything that would just all at one time get 5,000 more to show up......it would be something that over 10 or so years built a core of several thousand new fans many without a past association to the university and the hope each of them would bring a guest or two to a couple of games a year.....it would require the cooperation of the entire university, a dozen or more departments, every college or school, the REC center, UNT performance arts, the grant writing and research support group and on and on.....it would probably at first require UNT fans and students to have a thick skin about some of the associated businesses....and no it is not anything perverse or profane it is something the DFW metromess is based upon, it is not that exciting or "sexy" (shout out to sexytime), and I am pretty sure it would be easy to discount and hard to get traction at first...it would also require a great deal of monitoring and data gathering and "sales" from the athletics department and the willingness of athletics to pay students of certain departments some small wage to do internships towards those "information and sales" goals and it would require the cooperation of those departments....it would require a council of research leaders from the academic side to work with athletics to take advantage of all hoped for synergies from the denia area facilities......it would require political pull to arrange state dollars to be leveraged to help obtain private dollars and it would require a lot of scatter shooting with creative grant writing with a % hoped return to improve the denia facilities to further be able to market them and to build the synergies to finally sell a total package that would be attractive to long term sponsors about what investing in UNT and UNT athletics would be able to do for them financially.....anywhere from 200K at the cheapest end with a lot of volunteer effort and a LONG see 10+ year vision BEFORE there is a real big time payout and things really start to come together......2 million up front might get you to where 7 years and a hell of a lot of work gets a smaller time payout that could be leveraged in a couple of years for a larger payout.......if one or two things clicked it could be quicker...all that for again about 5K additional hard core fans at the end of the time and perhaps 2-5 million in additional, unencumbered, yearly, private, athletics support over and above any additional tickets concessions or parking and hopefully 5 to 7 million in research and academic programming support 2. the issue I have is that UNT does not have and has not had stable leadership to even begin to work on whatever plan they might want (if any)......and with the current hire......I see more instability and another change in leadership and possibly in direction much too soon for a university that needs long term stable leadership 3. I would have positively been a better president than at least 2 out of the last 4.....and if I was the last one before VLR I would still be there after a heated confrontation that involved myself, faculty, and students confronting the chancellor and eventually him losing a power struggle and being let go with no golden parachute and a swift kick in the ass back to dallas when you have turnover at the top, others higher up with alternate agendas, the lack of ability to have anyone that can step up when needed at critical times and fully explain and support how you are going to build and fund new facilities....or when the construction will start.....or when it will finish......or what future budget projections look like......or what future fund raising goals will be.....or the expected time frame to meet those goals......it is easy for a conference that has multiple universities to choose from to make the choice for another school that has clearly written, well defined goals and expectations that have firm dates and times as to when particular things will happen

ladies and gentleman.....our new post of the week!

well my concerns again go to the long term administration of the university....not the relatively short term aspect of a coaching search (though this particular hire for UNT at this particular time is critical) he was at Memphis for 9 years and WU for 8.....he just turned 73 last month he looks like the Chuck Neinas of university presidents to me......hired to come in and do some things and poof magic it is all better now......I don't think that is how the academic side of a university can or should function I also of course question the motives (and have for years on this forum) of the one that was responsible for placing him in that position even if a great plan can be written....I question what type of person will be willing to come in and run someone elses plan.....and because of who hired him I have questions about what will be told to him about what will be important for this plan.....because I question if a period of 9 months (some of which you were not even looking to become the full time replacement) is long enough to get a full grasp on what a university really wants or needs "tier 1" will not be a one, two, or three year process for UNT.....raising a research profile is not a 2 or 3 year project.......nor is a fund raiser "tier 1" would probably have a change of president during the process.....the other two.....I am not sure they will be in the process.....and that concerns me as for Rick Perry.....I voted for him.....he was far in away the better of the two candidates (though far from optimum)......but I hate to break the bad news to you, but I am not sure Rick Perry even knows UNT exist......I am positive he does not concern himself with how UNT is run or who is running it.....because for the time being the real leadership of UNT has been bartered away to others so that Rick Perry and others can worry about other things...and that concerns me as well

UNT needs a clear, long term plan, from the very upper echelons of the leadership chain with defined goals and the expectations of when and how they will be met....I have concerns that UNT does not have that in place and will not have that in place for a long while and during that gap in creation of, and total university implementation of, that plan (if ever) UNT will miss yet more chances to advance their position for the future....I also feel that missing that move in the future will probably be the last chance to catch a ride on the train UNT wants to be on and the results will be that UNT is on a different path for the long term....period I expressed those concerns in a now disappeared thread about the current president being put into place......and that thread was removed and I was banned for about 3 weeks from posting GMG prefers to discuss things in the form of... +1 gagree

unfortunately when I discuss answers to questions like this I get banned, have posting privileges restricted or have PM privileges removed

http://books.google.com/books?id=bANS-aNcpn4C&pg=PP8&lpg=PP8&dq=hayden+fry+book&source=bl&ots=XTRVl_1xNS&sig=sFKB424v1DhlZQUL4Fc31Ytjcko&hl=en&ei=4jj8TITnL8P_lge1u-CMBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=hayden%20fry%20book&f=false page 94 """We thought the Dallas-Fort Worth area should have a state school in the conference, and we got no objection from SMU and TCU. Texas and Arkansas supported us, as did Houston, a new member of the league. There were ongoing discussions about our, but someone always brought up academic standards and admissions requirements, areas where North Texas was thought to be lagging by conference standards. The talks continued and the interest was always there, and I think North Texas had a chance to be accepted had I stayed. But it never came to a vote, and after I left nobody pushed it. """

I think fans can help some at home games.....but other than that you can still win with an empty stadium and of course an empty stadium on the road could be a benefit I think fans come from the idea that the program will do the things needed to try and field a winning team each and every season.......taking a few singular actions one at a time without a clear defined long term plan may be enough to have a small streak of wins, but not enough to build long term fan support or a long term successful program year in and year out I agree 100% the administration needs to be committed to winning.......most other schools in D1-A could make the same claims that everything else is there......new stadiums are built all the time, old stadiums are improved even more often....that has payed off for some.....some it has not......those it has payed off for had a long term clearly defined plan in place as well and it was well presented to their fans and supporters Sure UNT COULD win in any conference.....they would probably have a better chance to win in CUSA than many others.......would they win there......possibly......would they win there consistently.....if I had to place money I would place it on no they would not win consistently.....again could they.....yes......would they.....based on their past records......based on the things other schools have in place and have had in place for a long time in CUSA......and the winning those places have done in the past......briefly.......before losing consistently again......I would say the chances of long term sustained success in CUSA would be less than 50/50 when there are 120+ D1-A schools.....a program in one of the lesser conferences.....and they still have a small budget, new facilities to pay for with that budget, lower levels of fan support, and low levels of alumni financial support.....it is difficult to sustain winning long term Southern Miss was able to have a very good run of winning.....they wanted to put their big boy pants on and "dominate" and here they are today......still winning, but still not dominating.....Tulsa is having a good run and looks to desire to continue to bring in named coaches as theirs go elsewhere.....and they seem to be able to hang on to their current coach for longer than most.....ECU had a good run so I guess it depends on what "winning" really means......could UNT specifically in any conference put on a run like Boise, TCU, or USF......they could.....I don't think they would anytime soon I am not for sure where "the SMU arrogance" comes from, but I suspect some SMU students and alumni do that specifically to others that constantly accuse them of being arrogant, rich, or responsible for their teams success or failure.....I know a guy that played for SMU during the Forest Gregg years.....he was recently in a discussion with me about why welfare in it's current form is good and he cited an example of his family being on it at one time......so I will ask him where the arrogance comes from next time I see him