GL2Greatness

demo will not run that much it only cost 6 million to demo Texas Stadium and Robertson will not be near that complex because it is half the size, has no roof structure, and parts of it are not concrete and will be easy to tear apart and recycle even if it was 5 million to demo Robertson that still leaves them with 28% more of a budget to work with (78 vs 100 million)

other than the fact that there has been no funding for an actual building or renovations to either of the two proposed sites for the building there have been no faculty or staff hired there has been no money to hire faculty or staff I have seen no evidence of renovations to the upper floors of the UCD and there is no money for those renovations dallas has started exterior renovations of the old muny building, but they have welched on the other half of the money they were going to provide to help interior renovations and there is no time table for them to provide that money the dean does not start his job April 2013 and the "scheduled opening" is August 2014 (well that is the new scheduled opening after several of the others were pushed back because no state funding).......that is just over a year to get buildings in place, get the actual materials for a library, get a staff, and hire faculty......when few if any faculty will be willing to leave their current position where they are probably already tenured and assured of employment......much less for any faculty that are not currently teaching law classes to make up course materials you need to get all the faculty and staff in place, the management software, the library, and then you actually need to sort through applicants (which probably will not be too difficult since "have pulse" (and brain dead enough to apply to new low tier non-accredited law school) will probably be most of it) you need to be in the position to jump right on accreditation so that you do not leave students with degrees that are not accredited which makes that degree worthless especially in Texas where accreditation is required to take the bar (see the unT college of engineering for an example or two of this with the ABET) the legislature will not be finished with budget sessions to actually fund the school until sometime in late 2013......so the school will not even know if it is funded until late 2013 which will leave less than a year to recruit faculty and staff and then admit students most faculty will already have been committed to their current position by that time even if they were dumb enough to leave it for a new non-accredited law school there has been no evidence of UCD students actually being displaced from the current UCD building which would be against an agreement that unT made when they purchased the building and I can see the unT system waiting until the last minute and then screwing those students by canceling classes and or making them take place at times that were not going to work for anyone, but I can't see the TAMU or the UT system doing that so I would think if there were going to be students displaced from the UCD there would be stories about it and or efforts by the TAMU and UT systems to make sure to find a place for those students with plenty of time to spare so other than total lack of funding and total lack of actual progress towards a building or faculty or staff no I can't see any reason it will not open in 2014......that is if it actually gets funded in the 2013 budget session and since TAMU is friendly with the governor and TAMU just made a large law school purchase funded by private money from many of their large powerful donors just a few miles down the road in Fort Worth I would think they would probably be in the know that the funding was not going to come in 2013 and the idea will probably be canned once and for all because the only thing worse than stalled projects is wasting money to move projects forward when they were never needed, were a bad idea to start with, and they carry large expenses forward for ever......for a "benefit" that is not needed and of no use and since unT-dallas struggles with their own enrollment and they will probably struggle with accreditation for the university itself (because they have already been shown to be poorly run) it is an even worse idea to tie a law school to that school especially when it might mean the unneeded law school would possibly face going through accreditation two times as outlined in the THECB report that was against even considering the law school in the first place much less tying it to the dallas campus

nice selective memory or avoidance or reality.....both are so common here on GMG TCU moved from the CUSA to the MWC in 2005 before that in 2001-2004 when they were in the CUSA they were 6-6....10-2......11-2.....5-6 so while that might not be any good to a powerhouse like unT that was good enough to get TCU into the MWC where they went 11-1 in 2005 and then 11-2 in 2006 and their worst year ever in the MWC 8-5 before going on a streak of never winning less than 11 games in the WAC with Fran for the three years before they went to CUSA they were 7-5....8-4.....10-1 again I can see how a fan of a powerhouse like unT would consider that not very good, but for a small school like CUSA and a crappy conference like CUSA it was good enough clearly it was just all about the media market for TCU and CUSA and the MWC as well

and how is being in a dallas suburb working out for unT......oh wait it is really not.......still having nearly a decade of losing, poor recruiting, and generally taking zero advantage of all that "potential" funny over 3X the number of fans turn out to see Tech in Lubbock (probably more of them from DFW than unT draws total) every year year in and year out this forum right now reminds me of the "great" DD years......"thrashing" a HORRIBLE Baylor team and th enext year was just going to be the greatest evAR.....Baylor was probably going to get kicked from the Big 12, TCU was about to slide downhill fo another decade, SMU was going to stay bad forever, some new great conference was going to come calling, the stadium was just a year or two away, unT was going to thrash a really bad Baylor team the next year again and ride that glorious win into infamy then reality set in and it has been 8 straight losing seasons, TCU is now in the Big 12 with several BCS games under their belt, SMU has been to and won several bowl games recently, Baylor just came off their best season in a long time with a Heisman QB that was a high draft pick, Baylor is having their best year athletically in a long time, SMU and UH moved to a better conference (well to anyone with a brain cell which of course leaves out many on this forum), unT moved to a conference with UTSA a school that most thought was 15 years away from being in D1-A much less in the same conference with unT.....that conference has other "move ups" in it now as well, the money is still bad, the stadium finally opened a number of years late, it did not even sell out the first game, it averaged just over half full for the year with the most attractive home schedule in a number of years.......but here are the members of this forum predicting doom and gloom for a number of other programs again, telling programs like NMSU and Idaho they should give it up (even though NMSU has a larger athletics budget and averaged just a few thousand fans less than unT in a much smaller market and sucking for decades and their basketball averages MORE fans the last year while unT was in theiir "20 wins" and (nothing to show for it) phase oh yea the members of this forum are great prognosticators on how college athletics will shake out here is a hint before you go telling other programs how they will be doing for the next decade or what level of competition they will or won't be at try mixing in more than a single bowl win in the last few decades, try supporting your own program so it does not have to drop down to D1-A, try getting your own fans to show up even if it means giving them free chicken, try getting into a conference based on something besides media market size before you lecture other programs about doing the same, try having a decent recruiting class, try getting more than 5 home games in a season in a brand new stadium, try selling it out or even filling it 75% for the season then maybe people will actually take you serious when you start telling them where other programs are headed for the next decade

how exactly has their recruiting dried up? they were #24 last year and #13 the year before that in 2010 under cult of mike they were #36 09 #30 08 #51 (matching up with an injury filled 2011 team) 07 #44 (matching up with an injury filled 2011 team) 06#17 (the highest for cult of mike in his decade) 05 #36 currently they are #48 with only 8 players so far and many months to go...Stanford with only 5 players is just ahead of them (I guess it is drying up for them too) then Boise ans WVU and then it starts getting into teams with double digit numbers after that Tuberville has better stats than cult of mike in pretty much anything that matters......won his division in the SEC, won the SEC, went to a BCS game, won a BCS game, and had a #2 ranking and an undefeated season he averaged 8.5 wins a season in the SEC to mikes 8.4 in the Big 12 5 teams in the top 15 to mikes 1 2 teams in the top 10 to mikes none 2 outright SEC division titles to mikes none 2 more shared to mikes one 2 seasons with 11+ wins to mikes 1 6 seasons with 9+ wins to mikes 4 clearly Tuberville recruits better even at Tech and he is clearly a more accomplished coach in everything, but cult following building teams in the SEC have up and down seasons even top coaches have up and down seasons.....I suppose you think that cult of mike is a better coach than Mack Brown because Mack Brown had a 5-7 season as well one year and I guess recruiting fell off the map for Texas as well if people that actually mattered and that had a brain thought mike was half the coach that his cult following thinks he is he would have gotten at least one of the "better" jobs he begged for while at Tech and he would have not had to sit out 2 years before winding up at WSU......but the reailty is only people that say things like "mike will have WSU winning 9-10 wins per season every year at WSU" think he is an awesome coach because they are forgetting that while at Tech mike won 10 or more games in a season 1 time in 10 years I am sure Tech fans appreciate your concerns for them, but I would imagine their coach will fix things up sooner than later and if he doesn't they have the resources to try again and they will still be ahead of where they would have been with no recruiting spare bowl cult of mike impossible unless they drop football

yea VS unT that is clockin' big dollas, dominating the sunbelt, going to and winning all those bowl games, drawing massive crowds and generally showing the college sports world how to get it done!.....and especially taking advantage of all the "potential"

actually they are not a big fan of me over there they don't like the idea of what I said in this thread specifically.....they seem to think that if unT gets rid of RV that things will pick up when the reality IMO is that would be a huge mistake because the only thing that has stayed the same while meaningful change has taken place has been RV the M&G crowd is the worst about wanting little hand written notes and chocolates on their pillow at night for their donations....they are the wrost about not understanding that programs that have sustained success have a full university committment to athletics from the BOR, to the chancellor (if there is one) to the president and on down RV can't go out there and force people to donate and often times it will not be RV that is even the front man on getting large donations even for athletics....at a very few (probably 10-15 max) universities the athletics department might be the front man for their own donations at the rest of the 110+ schools the university advancement department is in the lead.....the AD will be there to work a donor, to steer them in a direction (once athletics has been specified as to where they want to donate) and the AD might be there to give a major part of the close, but the rest of the advancement staff will be there as well look at TxState, UTSA, CSU, Tulane, UH and on and on their presidents and chancellors are right out in front on their athletics and stadium advancement and athletics is a major part of any capital campaign they have going on and often a specific listed part of that......unT has not had a campaign since RV has been here that I recall.......there is mention of some psudeo 150 million dollar campaign that happened back in 2000-2002, but I never recall it being published, I never saw any stated goals for it, I never saw athletics or any specific program or department listed, and then suddenly it was "done" and a "success" mainly IMO because there was a desire to have a much larger one and that fizzled so they stopped at the end of the planned "silent phase" with what they had and "success" the M&G forum is a lot like this one except they place 99% of the blame on RV, they get much more worked up about the "perks" for their donations, and they make fun of the members on here and some of the spin (that is a bit of a stretch or really a huge stretch so often) the AD of a university can't change a crisis of leadership that starts at the very top and flows down and RV has been hung out to dry IMO enough by that crisis and who can blame him for pulling back on some public comments.....VLR is a good leader, but IMO he will be gone much sooner than later and it will be back to someone elses grand new vision and who knows if that will include athletics and if RV had been out there makign some new plans and there is a change....RV gets hung out to dry again al the idiot hung RV out to dry on purpose right from the get go....Dr. Pohl was fighting a losing battle moving up from being a long time "insider" and he saw that and left......Dr. B. was busy executing her grand vision for the campus and then clashing with lee the idiot and trying to save her own job.....VLR is doing ok, but he is not here for the long term and that is specifically why lee the idiot decided on him without a search for anyone else......and clearly VLR is not goign to get in the way of the dallascentric focus so that is perfect for lee because he can get that done before another change is made the M&G board if buffoonery

I thought I was a TxState grad....no wait an SMU grad.....no wait I am a former unT music student.....no wait I am a former unT student that has a charge of securities fraud.......please get your stories straight and what season was UTSA 2-10? it seems that unT has more 2-10 seasons in the recent past than UTSA does and funny even though the "perk" for people going to UTSA was only a bucket of chicken.....I don't see people crying about that or refusing to buy season tickets or donate and in fact their season ticket sales are up and I would bet their donations are up as well......perhaps a bucket of chicken is worth more than unT tickets because many more people responded to that than responded to a 5-7 season in a new stadium....even with a larger metro area to draw from and even with many more alumni to pull from...

I am about 100% sure that there were multiple people on this forum that used to advocate for all the "reasons" that the sunbelt would be more attractive to schools in other conferences especially as the belt "caught up" to everyone else now that CUSA in particualr is adding move ups and moving closer to the sunbelt suddenly it would be a crazy idea for any school to even consider moving to the belt.......probably the words of those that used to say how the belt was catching up or even passing CUSA and other conferences I am not saying that any school should look at moving there right now especially, but there were plenty on this forum saying the same thing in the past

the issue I see is many of the "big time" donors especially those on the mean and green forum want to look at their level of donation and then compare the perks they get from the mean green club or wheatever to the perks that their friends get from some other program for the same level or even a smaller level of donation it goes back to the failed and false idea that it is all "just a step away" and the way that many on this forum want to pretend that other programs have not been investing in their programs for decades or that those programs have somehow had some unfair leg up that this program did not have......when the reality is people 25-30-50-75 years ago were investing in those programs at huge dollar levels and they may have been getting some perks, but back in those times peoples expectations of "perks" were much less......not to mention that those decades of investments were built upon so that todays donors at the $1,000 to $5,000 dollar level feel like they are getting big perks for their donation.....while this program is having to use 100% of those levels of donations and even higher levels just to try and catch up much less keep up......so they don't have 12 people on staff that can run everyone else through the flashcards of "big donors" faces so they can be sure to get gladhanded everytime they are seen or to slip a nice hand written message in every single letter or promo that is sent out...instead of being happy that they are laying the foundation for a possible future or they are helping to catch the program up they are busy measuring their "perks" VS what their friends get from places that have had huge donors for decades and places that regularly get donations yearly that total up to 100%+ of the total athletics budget of this program if you are donating so that mandy can give you a big hug before every game or so that RV can gladhand you and blow smoke up your butt everytime he sees you then you are probably donating for the wrong reasons and you are probably going to keep being disappointed if you are donating so that 30 years from now some smaller level of donors might get those perks then there is a chance that might happen if you are expecting your yearly donation no matter the size will get you treated the same as at a program that has had hundreds of donors at that level for decades then you will be disappointed for sure.....unless you want all that money to go to gladhanding you and blowing smoke up your butt and telling you how important you are while facilities fall further behind and wins don't materialize

you hate UTSA because you are scared as hell of them it is laughable to hear someone talk about "earning something" while cheering for a team that has had 4 winning seasons out of 16 in the worst conferences in D1-A after "earning it" by dropping down to D1-AA for a decade and a half after "earning it" by sucking so bad for several decades that you had to drop down lets see "earning it" with fan support.......oh yea that would be UTSA that had double the average attendance on unT "earning it" oh if you mean having 7 straight losing seasons in the worst conference in D1-A "earning it" with a single bowl win in the history of the program "earning it" by hiring high school coaches and coaches with losing records VS a coach that has a national championship as the head coach and multiple other 9 and 10 win seasons mocking a team for being added because of TV market only......when that was pretty much the only reason that unT was added if UTSA can mix in a bowl win in the next 8-10 years they will probably have "earned it" as much or more than unT ever has because they are not very good and it is much easier to make bucket of chicken jokes than it is to look in the mirror and realize that for everything you have "earned" you are really not that much better off if at all and that the bucket of chicken brigade is a winning season or two and a bowl win away from having "earned" about the exact same thing that unT has in decades in D1-A football

it has been open since 2006

no other system will step in and try and get the law school because none of them have foolish dreams and none of them are run by idiots that waste higher ed resources on failed dallas economic development projects this is like the argument that unT "won" or "beat out" other systems for the south dallas campus when the REALITY is that UT declined to even study the idea, Texas Tech took a brief look and declined to consider it for the same reasond that UT declined (the existance of two UT system schools in the area already with UTA losing enrollment at that time and UTD well below expected enrollment and with plenty of room to grow) and TAMU was actually the first choice, but after studying the idea TAMU only wanted to open an upper division system center not a full campus with dorms and athletics and all the other fluff that is not needed and that will be wastedfully planned for and will never happen http://www.senate.st...97/p050897a.htm right there from 1997 right from the office of the pig at the trough itself.....after the study was done and TAMU wanted a very limited program probably linked to a community college and using their existing facilities (just like TAMU-K-SA was started) royce the idiot turned on TAMU and looked to the last desperate partner out there and that was unT with an idiot named al hurley at the helm that was looking for something to top off his decades of lack luster "leadership" and a way to keep sucking at the teet of the public sector while working a lot less than a university president.......so the "system" was finally born with a "chancellor" that was seperate from the president and al took that do nothing job and did what he did best.....nothing until he retired with a more bloated retirement package based on higher pay for being a "chancellor" then dallas proper wedged in lee the idiot and they really started to suck the blood and the life out of the Denton campus...the unT "system" was handed off to the corrupt politicians of dallas in exchange for them no longer getting in the way of higher education in the rest of the state and the Denton campus suffers for that no one else wants a law school besides TAMU and even TAMU has given up on the idea of starting one from scratch because they know it is such a bad idea....if they really wanted to try and start one they would do so in Corpus, Kingsville, or Laredo and they might have a chance.....Brownsville and Edinburg have been begging for a law school (based in the same failed ideas that dallas pushes for with unT) for a decade or more and the UT system wisely declines to even consider it because they know it is not needed, it will always SUCK, and it will be a waste and a failure and it will produce people with lots of debt and few job prospects instead the UT system has wisely looked at medical schools.....one for Austin where the true "need" is questionable based on the "our region" argument that is killing government at all levels all over the USA and based on the fact that it will further increase the research profile of the Austin campus and the reputation.....since M.Ds are actually needed, can still get jobs (even if many of those jobs will now be working for a large HMO) it is not a waste to put an M.D school in Austin especially since medical training is medical training and it makes sense to put M.D. schools in areas where there are hospitals for residency UT is getting their Austin med school by committing resources to south Texas for their medical school and also by having Austin promise to provide funding for the Austin school and by getting private funding for it TAMU has made the wise decision to do the only thing possible to ever get a law school and especially to ever get one that has a chance of being decent or better and that is buying TWU......the reason that unT never bought TWU is because the parasites in dallas wanted to waste resources in dallas proper and TWU is not in dallas proper it is in Fort Worth so that does not work for royce and lee and the other fools TAMU will also have the resources and political clout to get it done this time and they will pull the private dollars to make sure that a waste of state finds argument can't be used even though unT has already wasted 5 million of state resources and probably several million more of system (Denton students) money on the law school that does not mean there is not millions more to be wasted if it is approved and with TAMU in the mix now the chances of it getting funded in 2013 look very slim.....some times when you are paddling in turd crek and you realize you are getting closer to the waste treatment plant it makes more sense to turn around and head back instead of heading for the rapids just after the waste treatment plant......you seem to think that closing your mouth really tight and tossing the paddles away and heading right into the rapids is a good idea because what the hell we are already in turd creek why turn back now when the reality is that even if the unT school does get the tens of millions more to waste and the formula fundign to waste in 2013 and 2015 TAMU is going to leverage significantly more resources (private dollars) to make sure that their school is competitive (as best it can be in a very poor market that will continue long into the future) and that just means the unT school will be further down the list.....no longer will they be able to claim we are "cheaper" or we are going to move rapidly past TWU (which is probably not realistic even if TWU stayed private) and while TAMU may well be wasting state and private resources at least they will not be doing so by adding even more students that will struggle to find jobs they are only wasting money on the same students that would struggle to fnd jobs not making more good money after bad money is never a wise investment.....never unT has been wasting time and resources on this law school since at least 2004 and it has failed time and again through at least 3 budget sessions and maybe 4 to get funded to actually open......it was shown to CLEARLY not be needed back then and that was well before the legal climate became so bad.....it was shown to not be needed in Texas and more specifically it was shown to not be needed in dallas and it was shown that IF anywhere sometime in the future could claim to need a law school it would be south Texas and it was clearly shown that Texas could easily and more cheaply porduce more lawyers if they were needed by increasing enrollment at existing schools and all of that was nearly a decade ago when the legal climate and the economy and state budgets were not so bad off the wrong place, the wrong time, the wrong academic programs, and in reality the wrong university and system to attempt it.......and to keep it going just means the Denton campus will continue to suffer for that mistake and many other similar mistakes

in Texas without a voter registration card you can vote with an ID, a bill that shows you live in the area, and you sign a sworn statement that you have not voted in that election anywhere else I know this for a fact as it happened to me.....I had recently moved, I had signed up to vote at the county fair, and I had not received a card and I just thought it was because the time period was so short.......the people at the polling place were very helpful and I did have to go get a power bill, but once I was back with that and showed it and my ID and signed the form I was able to vote and not long after that I got a voter card in the mail as well not all that difficult at all

1. while you say that legal employment overall is not down it is just the really high paying jobs that are down.....when the average TSU-TMCL graduate is 100K in debt when they graduate, a large chunk of them fail to pass the bar, and when they have put off earning 30 to 35K per year at even a crappy job for 3 years......that puts those people about 200K in the hole for their "chance" to enter the exclusive club and if not they can take that 45K per year DA job and they can have the equivilent of the large chunk of a mortgage payment for just their legal education cost to cover for the next 20 years that will eat up a hugh chunk of that 45K per year.....and it is not like cities and counties are hiring left and right now as well if people want to gamble to enter the club then they can go to any one of the existing schools public or private they don't need the tax payers to step up and help offset a small part of that cost.....they can take the full gamble themselves 2. the THECB study and every other study out there has made it clear that Texas has no shortage of lawyers even with the increase in population and that the new jobs in the legal field will be about HALF of the number of current legal graduates for in state graduates alone not to mention imports the THECB has made it clear that existing law schools and their graduates will fill the legal needs of the state for the forseeable future even if the economy picks up 3. while a large school can go down in rep the fact is that UT is the largest law school in Texas and also clearly the highest "ranked" and I did say before that size is an issue in their not being ranked higher, but that is because UT refuses to build out library and library staff levels and placement office and similar things to meet the ratio that would rank them higher because they know it really makes no difference in the education they provide, they know their students mostly get hired still based on their rep and they know that the schools ahead of them are spending stupid amounts of money on those things to keep their top rankings and it would be hard for UT to make a resonable climb even if they just wasted money on those things....the other public schools in Texas could easily add 250 students split between them and not come close to being the size of UT or to being over crowded provided that the funding was given at similar levels......and as of now and into the future no one out there believes there is a need for those students even if the economy improves greatly 4. oil and gas is fine and good, but your average divorce, IP, business, criminal defense, and on and on lawyer needs to know next to nothing about oil and gas unless they are dealign with a divorce, criminal, or business case that involves oil and gas and then they can always consult with someone else.......no lawyer can know it all and any one that does is dangerous.....the only place in the USA that has laws that are dramatically different than most other places is Louisiana and even then it is not rare at all for lawyers to pass the bar in Louisiana and other places no matter where they went to law school 4. if unT-dallas college of law was funded and set in stone in 2009....why was it not funded to actually open then much less two years later in 2011.......well because it has not actually been funded to open that is why.......and if it is not funded to open in 2013 then you can look forward to more spin from the unT system about having to wait to find just the right people and just the right students and blah blah yadda yadda and look for us to open in 2016!!!!!!!!....IF THEY GET FUNDED IN 2015!!!!! which will probably not happen there was ZERO funding for renovations to the top floors of the UCD and there was ZERO funding for faculty and there was not even a hint of funding for the old muny building they hope to move into one day......which is why they did not open in 2012......because they were not funded to open the legislature can do anything they wish.....they can close it down in 2013 and say it is done for if they wish.....they could close down UT Austin in 2013 if they wish.....all they would have to do is cut the funding and say you are closed....the THECB has nothing to do with it at all they are powerless in Texas and if the legislature says something does not get funded or it is closed or it is open.....then it is not funded, it is closed, or it is opened.....they have the power to make it happen or not happen and a lot of that power is funding it or not funding it http://www.ntdaily.com/?p=5345 see they were going to accept applications in 2010 and open in 2011......but of course since they got no funding in 2011 that won't happen.....and it did not happen.....and actually more accruate would have been funded in 2011 and opened in 2012.....but they were not funded in 2011.....so they made up a story about "needing to find a dean that wa s the "right fit" and that "took longer than planned" and since dallas has only just started on the exterior renovations to the muny building, and since dallas has welched on the 8 million for interior renovations they promissed.......and since it will already take 45+ million for the interior in addition to the 8 million dallas welched on........that means that building will not be used any time soon and it will take 20+ million to renovate the top two floors of the UCD......and there was ZERO funding alloted for that in 2011......and I have seen NOTHING that says that the unT system has started those renovations on their own......and since the unT system is already stretched WAY too thin......I doubt they have the money to do those renovations on their own.......because they already wasted money on building a building in south dallas that was larger than the formula funding and state approved funding allowed......but the "system" tightened their belt for that "calculated gamble" and since the actual enrollment has DECLINED every year the dallas campus has been open that "gamble" is not paying off.......and unT also bought a residential building next door to the UCD against the recomendations of the THECB.......and that building has failed to live up to the projections for the number of residents even AFTER opening it up to non students......so the "system" has to cover that stupidity.......they are still paying for the actual purchase of the UCD building......and if they hold law classes in that building that means they will displace UCD students http://www.theeastte...63#.T-2iEcWDobO unT made an agreement when the building was pruchased that they would not dicplace the UCD students.....and as that article says they were looking at another building for the law school (not the same as the old muny building that is in disrepair) and now unT WANTS to have the law school on the top two floors and part of the other floors only slightly displacing UCD students.......but they don't have the money to do so because they have WASTED system resources left and right on "gambles" that have FAILED to pay off the unT system is struggling for money....that is why they have business officers going to the students in Denton and saying lets not bond out the new union lets raise the fees by a factor of 9.....and even after that we are going to take the fashion collection that the fashion students actually use for their classes and we are goign to stick it in storage and we are going to move those students and another programs students and faculty into three temp shacks right in the midle of campus across from the new union.......because they have WASTED their resources and ability to bond out more things based on future hopes that is why after the Denton students paid more tuition last year specifically to hire more faculty the Denton campus did NOT hire more faculty because of a decrease of about 500 total students.......a very very small decrease for a university of nearly 36K students, but they could just not find the money to hire new faculty even though they increased tuition on all 36K students just for that reason.....that is also the reason that the Denton canpus can not increase admissions......because they need all the warm bodies they can get to cover their "calculated gambles" in south dallas and their residential building purchases in downtown dallas and to try and renovate the top floors of the UCD on a wing and a prayer that if they just spend enough money and get far enough along that the legislature will be forced to fund the law school foolishness.......but after unT has failed on so many other plans and ideas and gone against the recommendations of the THECB and the legislature and now that royce west is no longer in charge of the higher education committee unT has blown it and they have lost anyone wanting to help them with their failed dreams because they just don't pan out and they turn out to be a waste of precious resources 5. that Eagle article (like so many student paper articles) is just wrong....it was the AG that stepped in and killed the purchase of STCL and if the legislature had wanted it done then they could have funded it and it would have happened......the THECB is POWERLESS to stop things that the legislature wants and they are powerless to have things happen that the legislature does not want.....the THECB only offersw advice and makes reports......if the legislature wants it then it happens.....if they do not want it then it does not happen 6. unT will not be offering M.D. degrees in two years.....why.....for the same reason they do not have a functioning law school right now......the M.D. program was not funded by the legislature in 2011 http://www.hsc.unt.e...ame=In the News it says right on the link above from the unTHSC 07-15-2011 Push for UNT Health Science MD school stalled the BOR can approve anything they want....the THECB can agree or disagree with that......but if the legislature does not fund it then it is all for naught http://www.star-tele...fort-worth.html and just as the link states above The Texas Legislature's recent failure to approve an M.D. program at the University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth it was not apporved or funded.....it will not happen.....a PharmD. program will happen because it was funded after 3 tries, but an M.D. program will NOT happen because it was not funded.....just like the law school was not funded...so it will not open.....and if it is not funded in 2013.....it will not open and while the PharmD program was funded....I would not be shocked to see it face delays as well.....because the unT system has a crisis of leadership that is in well over their heads with too many issues they are not ahndling properly and too many stupid distractions and too many thieves and parasites in the mix and it gets in the way of and henders their ability to make things actually happen and to make themselves attractive for private dollars and attractive to people that will come in and get things like PharmD programs rolling in a proper fashion that will lead to accrediation.....just like they struggled to find a dean for the law school even after that 5 million was funded in 2009 and just like they have struggled to run the dallas campus and they have struggled to get engineering programs going and just like they are struggling to meet their own projections for the strategic plan for research only 2 years into it....poor leadership and poor planning and wasteful stupid ideas

the legal field is hurting because of many more reasons than just a down economy even if the economy was decent to good the legal field was headed for issues regardless.......it is exactly the attitude that you and those that support the unT-dallas law school are expressing that has put the hurt on the legal field it is over crowded and will continue to be......add in legal software (not that great for most things, but useful for some), the offshoring of legal clerking and brief writing to places like India, and the fact that many many law schools have already opened up over the last decade and there are already issues and there will continue to be and even if the economy turns around and things pick up there are PLENTY of law school slots available and plenty of people available to fill them without more schools......the THECB estimated it would cost 1.25 million per year to add 250 law slots in Texas at existing schools VS 55 million in start up and building cost alone for a new law school so Texas could add the same number of graduates from existing law schools for the next 44 years with the cost to start the unT-dallas law school and now that it is looking like it will cost 20 million to 30 million just to renovate the UCD and then another 45 million for the old muny building if they are ever able to move there and the return on investment is even more poor http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/1867.PDF?CFID=30136432&CFTOKEN=16473819 building something from scratch just to say there is exist is not always the best idea there has already been 75 million plus wasted on the dallas campus and it has never in a decade come remotely close to the wildly (out right fraudulent) projections that were given for even the first few years and it is well past those years and still WELL under those projections and well under performong and it is actually LOSING enrollment over the last 3 years why repeate the same mistakes with something that cost even more, is not remptely needed, and that will saddle the "graduates" with even greater debt and lesser job prospects

"everything" is in place except for two things.......the first and foremost thing is the actual funding to open......the legislature has declined to fund the law school the last few sessions and there will not be another opportunity to fund it again until 2013 when the next budget session takes place and there is zero guarantees it will be funded then the second issue is there is no actual location to hold classes.....dallas is only donating a building and EXTERIOR renovations and a very small part of the interior renovations needed to keep the building from flooding and they have already welched on the 8 million needed to renovate the interior to keep it from flooding........the are only paying for the exterior part so far and then the building will need 46 million more in interior work to make it ready to hold classes http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/print-edition/2010/12/03/unt-law-building-awaiting-funds.html?page=all dallas has started 8 million on the exterior to prevent the building from further falling apart, but they have welched on the 8 million in mechanical and interior work and The State of Texas has only appropriated 5 million TOTAL so far over all the years for the law school and that was to hire deans and do studies and other BS......they have never allocated a dime for actual classroom space or infrastructure much less for faculty or operations as of now the plan is to house the law school in the UCD building, but it will take 20 million in renovations for that as well and the article says that should have started by now, but I do not believe that it has.....there is also the issue of booting the programs that are UCD programs.......when unT purchased the UCD building they agreed to allow all universities that wished to have programs there continue to do so.....the THECB has very little actual power, but I believe there is a signed agreement in place with UTA and TAMU-C stating they can continue to use the UCD building for s long as they like as well as any other university that wishes to have classes there there was actually a story in the TAMU-C student papaer about the possibility of being booted from the UCD along with UTA and actually along with unT-Denton as well (part of the Dr. B blowup), but as of now those classes are still there and I do not believe that any of those schools have actually made plans for an alternate location if they need one......and I am not sure the renovations on those two floors have started yet as well......and even if they have that is just more theft of money fron Denton students because The State of Texas as of now has not funded that and there is no guarantee they will fund them......so the "system" will have to cover that and since the dallas campus can't even afford to fund 100% of their new building that they built larger than needed without state funding and with the possibility that the state will NEVER cover those bonds that means that Denton campus students are covering bonds for a "calculated risk" and having to suffer from "belt tightening" for a building in south dallas and they may well be paying or soon paying for the renovations of the upper floors of the UCD for a law school that is not needed and that if opened will go to the dallas campus......and to top it off they paid to buy the building to start with and now their UCD programs may well get the boot http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2009/06/15/story11.html?page=all ask yourself where do "internal funds" come from for a school with 2,000 part time students and who tightens their belt in a "system" that consist of a main campus of 36K students and a school with 2K 100% part timers and a D.O. school that is funded in an entirely different fashion.......hint it is not the TCOM students and it is not the dallas students how will unT be able to charge lower tuition......they are spending or will spend 20+ million for a temporary home and then spend 46 million for a dallas building they are not sure they will ever be able to move into.....law professors are paid pretty much the same at public and private schools......law library resources still cost the same.....the only difference between public and private schools is the VERY SMALL amount of state support that public law schools get and Texas does not fund public law schools at near the rate that they fund other higher ed programs......law schools have to be much more self sufficient and since TAMU will be public, they are paying 25 million + 2.5 million per year in rent, they are covering the buy in with private donations, and they will get the same amount of small formula funding that unT would get......that means that unT will be behind the curve and having a much larger amount of debt to cover immediately vs TAMU also there is no "battle" with the THECB the THECB is pretty much powerless to stop anything dealing with higher ed.....in Texas it is the legislature that has 100% say so and control the THECB only gives recomendations and reports and serves to collect and audit information.....actual funding, approval or degree programs ect is either approved by the BOR and implemented with the university covering it or in the case of things like medical schools, pharamcy programs, law programs, vet programs and the like that have large start up cost or that will require large new formula funding every year it is the legislature that gives that the funding or the non-funding......if it was up to the THECB the unT law school would have been dead before it started because the THECB has clearly stated time and again it is not needed, there is no need for new legal education opportunity in Texas and if there ever was to be a need it would be in South Texas and even then it would be about 50+ million dollars cheaper right off the bat to increase enrollment at existing schools the reason the unT law school has not opened is because The State of Texas has at least 2 times (maybe three) declined to fund it beyond the 5 million in "startup" cost they got in 2009 and since then they have funded it with ZERO which means it is dead in the water until such time as it is funded.....the THECB has no actual power to stop or start it or to get it funded......it was not the THECB that stopped TAMU from buying STCL it was the legislature as well howdy! optimism is nice and all, but this will not light a fire under anyone.....dallas is broke, they have a new hotel to be worried about and a new 200 million dollar high rise with a death ray killing the museum next door that will not come close to breaking even that they will soon be on the hook for much less things they should actually be paying for dallas already welched on half of the money needed for repairs on the old muny building and they will probably never come through witht hat money a few miles difference from dallas to Fort Worth is not even remotely an issue.....top dallas law firms recruit nationally they are not suddenly going to take marginal students from a new law school just because it is down the street and many of the people running those schools have a vested interest in keeping THEIR law schools they graduated from looking good not throwing a bone to the cheap degree factory down the street.....their kids are going to those top schools not unT law schools as much as ANY degree is based on reputation not location and it is a very closed club not looking to give a leg up to upstarts especially ones that have a goal of being "cheap" and for the common man and to graduate public service lawyers it will be extremely difficult to recruit faculty from existing law schools where they have tenure and are established to a new law school especially at a time when law degrees are less than valuable from marginal and new schools......law faculty still cost the same public or private and TAMU will not have the start up cost associated with unT nor will they have the accrediation process to go through and possibly having to go through that TWICE as unT dallas gets accrediated and the possibility of facing reaccrediation for the law school based on that is faced (that is if the law school becomes close to opening before unT-dallas gets accrediated and that looks less and less likely) not only will faculty have to be hired, legal journals will have to be started, student organizations, placement offices and on and on.....that will take much more than "we are in dallas and they are MILES away in Fort Worth to overcome" and you are pretending that TAMU does not have deep pockets ready to toss money at this immediately to get it established and improve the reputation......while unT struggles as a system to raise funds for anything and they have raised next to nothing for a law school in a "huge legal community" (mainly because that huge legal community knows the school is not needed and they are loyal to other places already and will continue to be) aggies more than anyone will always be aggies even though they had to go to law school somewhere else......so when the chance comes they will be one of the few groups of lawyers with degrees from elsewhere that will be willing to throw cash and opportunities to their new law school and especially to graduates that have aggie undergrad degrees...that is part of the reason that TAMU is a top university and that is part of the reason they have the 25 million already lined up for this purchase....and more for the rent.....and more for other needed things incorrect the THECB is powerless they approve nothing it is the legislature that approves it and that is why unT is not open now.....because they have never been funded and they will not have a chance to be funded again until 2013 and if not then the law school is probably dead I doubt that UH or TTU or UT will get involved mainly because this probably signals death for the unT law school and that means tha tthe same or possibly fewer lawyers will be produced because a new school will not open and TAMU is taking over an existing school and between their private donors and now state support they can afford to increase admissions and cut class sizes and graduate numbers so it is a win win for the existing law schools in the state for the most part......there will be increased competition to a degree because TAMU will put resources into the school and improve the reputation, but it will take a long time to really get that in place and at the same time there will still be 250 or so fewer law graduates than is there was a NEW school opening up along with TWU staying private and unT has not met all the requirements.....they have failed to meet the main requirement and that is to actually be funded by the legislature and the next opportunity for that is 2013 and if the state is still in a budget crunch it will not happen then and if it does not happen then then unT law is probably dead because by tehn it will be clear the legal market is dead, TAMU will be established, and it will be very clear that the dallas campus is a total failure as well and in no way ready to take on a law school and Texas will move on to UT medical schools in Austin and South Texas vs unneeded law schools in dallas and you are dreaming if you think that aggies are just going to get a law school and then let it sit there with a 4th tier reputation they have already secured the 25 million from private donations to buy the place and surely million more will be spent in private money by them and being in "dallas" has nothing to do with anything top law schools recruit nationally they don't recruit because joe's law school is around the corner and also the legal community is not a regional deal if it is suffering all over the USA (and it is GREATLY) that means that students from all over the USA are looking everywhere for jobs even from top law schools and that means that dallas law firms are recruiting nationally even more than ever and they have ALWAYS recruited nationally no one from a major dallas law firm is sittig around wishing that subway law college would open up around the way so they could hire local.....they are nationally recruiting and will continue to do so period and as I said above is any group of people will be willing to break the mold just a bit and hire it will be aggies supporting aggies and everyone else will be in the same boat as all the other graduates from low ranked and unneeded law schools....in debt and unemployeed also Texas is usually on the cusp of the top 14 law schools and they are recognized nationally the issue with them is large class sizes and refusal to invest in the library resources to match enrollment, but many people consider them to be nationally competitive UH also has three nationally competitive specialties like health care, IP, and energy.....it will be extremely difficult for unT to go after specialties like IP because people that go into that speciality often have engineering or life/physical sciences degrees and unT is not known for either of those while UH and TAMU are.....in health care unT has a medical school, but it is a D.O. school and those are not known for strong research programs they are known for primary care and while UH does not have a medical school they have a strong asociation with the TMC and UH and TAMU are already very strong in all aspects of energy to produce under graduates in those fields and to have faculty for collaboration with their law faculty it was an up hill and foolish battle for this law school already and it would have been even more of an up hill battle for the graduates of it if it ever opens, but now it has just gotten even more up hill and possibly done for

yes because there will be only 5 or 6 conferences participating

the auto bid meaning that NCAA teams outside of football get to participate in NCAA sponsored chamipnships automatically for winning the conference for this to happen a conference needs at least 6 teams that have played together for at least two years and for mens basketball specifically they need those 6 teams that have been together for 2 years and also they need a 7th team that has been D1-A for something like 6 or 7 years I can't remember so if the NCAA was to say that UH, Memphis, UCF, and SMU had "left" the CUSA even though they never played in the BE and that by "leaving" the CUSA it broke the string of having been together with other remaining CUSA teams that would mean that the teams that "left" and any remaining BE teams would need to envite at least 6 of the 7 CUSA teams that they "left" to go to the BE now if the NCAA said that UH, Memphis, UCF, and SMU had not broken the two year string of being together with the remaining CUSA teams then they would only need two more of the remaining CUSA teams + one school that had been D1-A for a number of years so Cincy, Louisville, UH, Memphis, UCF, and SMU would only need two more teams that had been in the CUSA to make a conference that would automatically qualify for all the NCAA sponsored playoffs.....I still think they would go to at least 12 and most likely invite all or almost all the CUSA teams they had left behind and when you say "they don't like ECU because the market is small" I can only conculde the "they" would be Louisville and Cincy and other BE members since "they" would be the ones that passed on ECU being invited to the BE.......and since it would most likely be Louisville and Cincy and USF along with Memphis, UH, SMU, and UCF that would be getting left behind if the BE breaks up and since only Louisville has a market they actually come close to delivering (Cincy does not deliver their market) and the other remainign longer term BE teams do not have a huge market much less one they deliver I would think that it would be Louisville that would be the only one that could remotely have a complaint about ECU.....and I doubt they would since ECU delivers strong support even in a "smaller" market

Houston would not block Rice they would welcome them Louisville is not going anywhere the teams that would NEED to be paicked from would be at least 6 of the remaining 7 long term CUSA members so that a new conference would still have NCAA auto bids in all sports.....that means UTEP, Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, Marshall, ECU, and USM.....all of the small private schools like one another, houston has no issue with Rice, and I doubt that Louisville has an issue with ECU I am sure it is other BE members that were not interested in ECU you can be talking to me all you wish, but I don't trade stocks professionally so it would be impossible that I have ever been fined by any national organization dealing with stock trading......you have no clue who I am and you can dream that you do all you wish, but it does nothing to disprove the things I post and it just makes you look foolish and makes me laugh that much harder at your attempts to discredit someone that you know nothing about because you can't actually discredit their statements of fact get a clue

I might have made them look stupid, but I don't see where I called them stupid

it is not my dream that 16K fans will need to be there to fill half the stadium it is basic mathmatics based on your statement oldschoollefty, on 25 June 2012 - 02:00 AM, said: just wait until the first game in the upcoming series when half (maybe more ) of Ford Stadium is decked out in green you clearly said just wait until half of the stadium is there decked out in green.....you did not say half of the fans at the game you said half of the stadium......that would be 16K fans and 7k/20K = 35% that is not roughly 40% that is exactly 35% and 20K fans at a game for SMU is still 2K more than unT averaged last year in their brand new stadium so I am not sure I would be bagging on SMU for getting 20K to a game against anyone.......and if that many fans showed up it just goes to show that someone cares about SMU because that is 2K+ more than the season average for a much larger school, with a new stadium, and tens of thousands more alumni in the area........that appearently get more excited about showing up to see a game at SMU vs at Apogee... also you don't seem to have a clue what point you are trying to make.....you say that SMU must have regional fans to survive and they will need unT more than evAR to survive and then when it is pointed out that SMU will have 4 regional OOC games for the next several years you suddenly start saying how fans never showed up to those games....which pretty much defeats your origonal "point" that SMU needs regional games to draw fans and to survive as a program SMU has slightly over 50% of their student body from outside of Texas with California (SDSU) being the next leading state for enrollment then Florida (UCF USF) and Connecticut being #7 on the list of states that send students to SMU......so the Big East teams will be very familiar to a large number of SMU students and playing in those locations will help SMU recruit from places that they already do very well recruting students from I wouldn't expect you to understand much if any of this because well you are you, but SMU and their administration understand it and that is what matters to them not the false reality and BS that is bantered about on this forum and so easily refuted and made to look like the BS that it is

again reality steps back in Ford Stadium holds 32K.....half of that is 16K last year in the brand new Apogee Stadium unT managed to average 17,178 fans....but somehow you are going to get 16K fans to show up to another teams stadium and if unT fans managed to show up to Apogee the way that GMGers dream to they would show up then SMU would only have 3K visitors tickets to have access to and if the fans don't show up the way GMGers dream then it is still up to unT to release those tickets for opposing fans to buy.....and it is really not their job to fill the stadium of their opponents and perhaps you missed the part where SMU has plenty of regional opponents on their schedule like Baylor, TCU, TAMU, and others that will bring fans and that will bring the SMU fans out as well lastly of course my act is tiresome to you because I deal in reality and you deal in a fantasy world

then reality steps in 2012 09/02 - at Baylor 09/08 - Stephen F. Austin 09/15 - Texas A&M 09/29 - TCU 2013 08/31 - Texas Tech 09/14 - Baylor 09/21 - at Texas A&M 09/28 - at TCU 2014 08/30 - at Baylor 09/06 - at North Texas 09/13 - TCU 09/20 - Texas A&M 2015 09/05 - Baylor 09/12 - North Texas 09/19 - at TCU 2016 09/03 - at North Texas 09/17 - at Baylor 09/24 - TCU 2017 09/02 - Baylor TBA - North Texas TBA - at TCU I think they have "regional teams" covered quite well even if they ditched the safeway bowl tomorrow......SMU has never needed unT and never will "need" unT get real no one besides the members of this forum thinks that the current CUSA is anything close to what the BE will be even in the BE loses two more teams because that just means the CUSA will lose two more of their top teams or that CUSA will be torn apart as former members join back with their long time fellow CUSA members "travel cost" "regional appeal" and all the othe rBS that is tossed out on this forum is just that......TCU did just fine as the only team in their conference from Texas for a number of years in fact they thrived specifically because they did not sit around blowing smoke up their butts about someone else "needing" them or blow smoke up their butts about what other programs were doing......they set out to do it themselves Boise and UH that have both had some success recently both view the BE as an opportunity.....SMU, Memphis, UCF, and SDSU all view it as an opportunity......I think the administrations of those university athletic programs are much better measures of what the BE provides to them VS the bleatings of the often wrong and wildy over optimistic members of GMG

this would be a great move if one was interested in cementing CUSA as the crappiest conference in the country bar none Richmond a team that has not played a down of football in D1-A and has an 8.7K stadium along with UTSA, UNCC, and ODU....why not mix in Jackson State and Missouri Something or Another to really top it off? more than likely if the BE falls apart you will see UH, SMU, UCF, Memphis join up with Louisville, Cincy, USF and then ask Rice, UTEP, Tulane, Tulsa, USM, ECU, and maybe Marshall if they only want 14 (which is a crappy number) if they want 16 then Latech, and FIU, would be in play because it would give them 4 in Texas with all 3 major areas covered, 4 is the MAX that a conference can have in Texas before others in the conference complain and before those teams start to feed on each other and the conference becomes heavy with Texas teams that are always bad, it would give them 3 in Florida, and 2 in Louisiana Louisville and Cincy are not going to the ACC or the Big 12, Rice, UTEP, Tulane, Tulsa, USM, and ECU give the conference 6 teams that have played together long enough to make the NCAA autobids a non-issue, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, and SMU have their private school block back together, you have multiple large metro areas covered in two states that are hot beds for recruiting, the smaller market teams have strong fan support and recent histories of winning, you have several good to really good basketball programs, and schools that all know one another that would be 16 teams so even if some of them somehow or some way were lured away in the future there would not be a rush to add more, and there is a good split geographically with ECU Louisville Cincy USF UCF Marshall FIU USM UH Rice SMU UTEP Tulane Tulsa Memphis LaTech UH and SMU are not going to come back to the CUSA the way it is now and Louisville and Cincy are not going to the ACC or Big 12 neither are USF or UCF or Memphis and the members of the CUSA that were left behind by those schools in the recent and distant past would love to get back together with them VS sitting in the CUSA especially when they know that all the other 6 or 7 members will be jumping off immediately if ask......they will be ask as a group and they will be GONE then it is up to them to decide of 14 works or if 16 is better......there will be a max of 4 Texas teams and probably a max of 3 FLA teams and 6 out of the 7 long term members of CUSA will be needed for CUSA auto bids so more than likely all 7 would be ask just in case UTEP or Tulsa looks at the MWC again there would still be 6 for the NCAA auto bids then one more team from FLA and one more after that.....LaTech is the strongest left with the most fan support as well and the most recent history of winning and they are right in the vacinity of everyone else