Jason Howeth

"North Texas State" at about 9:20 in the 2Q 🤬

Nah man. They certainly "play" for more on the battlefield, but on the football field, that means garbage.

One deranged fan's opinion does not make a good basis for decisions.

These numbers are pitiful, and I'm with everyone else who thinks the university should be doing much more to inform the alumni in the DFW that we're on national television. The base assumption of most UNT grads is that our football team isn't good enough to be on national TV, so they never look. As someone said earlier, run some ads during prime time local news. Heck, any time after 5pm for the entire week. Contact sports bars and pubs all over the DFW and, heck, pay them to keep our game on. Get the word out. As for the Memphis numbers, I still discount it a little bit for being on ESPNU. We know that channel usually isn't included with whatever cable package people have when they get ESPN and ESPN2, so it makes sense that people wouldn't be able to watch. Still, we need to do a better job.

Vibes, my guy. Vibes.

According to Google, yes it does.

Even with an 11am game, there will be full stands on both sides. 50 passes is a bit too many, especially as @UNTcrazy727 mentioned he's only done that once in our almost air raid offense.

I'm not necessarily complaining that we have what looks like plenty of opportunities to travel to a bowl game, but does it seem to anyone else like they never predict North Texas to be the farther-traveling team? Obviously some of this week's predictions contradict this point, but I feel like we're always slotted in the Armed Forces/Frisco/First Responder bowls with another team traveling like 1,000 miles to play us. I don't know that I have a point here, just rambling.

The AAC is obviously helping our progress in visibility because the conference is tied to ESPN for national games. ESPN wants to show the top performing schools and right now--at 5-1--North Texas is the definition of "top performing." No matter our faults, which there are many, we deserve the attention. We deserve to get more eyeballs on our school. A prime example of the opposite effect is that UTSA (2-4, 0-2) isn't getting national Saturday games at all. Who would've thought that a year ago? Drink it in, y'all. We may not be here in a couple weeks, but I hope to God that we are.

Second-worst ranked 1-loss team in all of FBS. Nobody in national media believes in this team, which is unfortunate. Other notables: No. 21 SMU (5-1) No. 26 Navy (5-0) No. 27 Army (5-0) No. 36 TTU (5-1) No. 45 Tulane (4-2) No. 47 Memphis (4-1) No. 67 SHSU (5-1) No. 71 TxStU (3-2) (???) No. 74 Auburn (2-4) No. 76 TCU (3-3) No. 78 Baylor (2-4) No. 83 UofH (2-4) No. 90 FSU (1-5) No. 108 UTSA (2-3) No. 109 FAU (2-3) Full Ranking: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/rankings/cbs-sports-rankings/

I do not find this exercise fun.

Love it, but you have to mute at 3:20. That music is incessantly repetitive...

This is sick! I'm completely on board for this script helmet!

I'll expand your question a little bit to ask, "what recourse might the MWC have because of this poaching?" Regarding a claim against the Pac-12, the first answer that comes to mind is not breach of contract, because the MWC and Pac-12 aren't in any type of agreement where a prohibition on poaching a team makes sense (unless they built that into their agreement to play football this year). But, tortious interference with a contract might apply. Essentially a party like the MWC in this scenario would have a claim against the Pac-12 because the Pac-12 interfered with MWC's agreement with Boise St., for example. There would be loads of questions about how damages can be calculated, but that's for actual lawyers and accountants on the case to decide. Another recourse for the MWC might be breach of contract against Boise St. But I have a very good feeling that in lieu of making a claim like that available to the MWC if Boise St. leaves, the MWC requires the substantial buy-out amount. Last couple notes on the tortious interference claim: MWC would never go after the Pac for that because it would open the flood gates to every other conference suing another conference each time a school moves. The MWC wouldn't want to sue the Pac to get some sort of damages for Boise St. leaving, and then turn around only to see C-USA to get the bright idea that it can sue the MWC for poaching TCU from many years ago (that's the latest example I could think of). Also, very likely that the NCAA, which charters the conferences and governs their administration quite a bit, has prohibitions on retaliatory litigation in the case of a school leaving. tl;dr: No, MWC probably wouldn't have any claims for many reasons.

Was this the same kid that got his GF pregnant when he was a freshman and had to drop off the team?

Do I like that Texas State would suddenly be on our "level" of play? Absolutely not. Would probably hate it, in fact. But would I, as an Austin resident, love being able to go to a UNT game within a short driving distance about every 2 years? Hell yes. Miss me with UTSA games. It's an hour and a half drive one way and I've got two kids under 4 with naps and early bedtimes. Also LOL @ UTEP.

100% agree with Clay here. I've been saying from the beginning of NIL payments that there will need to be a cap. It's a completely broken system that needs massive improvements.

This is what we normally call fraud.

Right, this is why getting agreements in writing is so important. These fights constantly turn into a "he said / she said" back and forth that is tough for juries to make a decision on. In that case, the kid would need to bring in evidence that helps to show--but may not concretely prove--that an offer was made by the coach. To do that, he can bring in evidence like (a) communications to his friends, if he disclosed the nature of the deal at the time; (b) communications with the coaching staff that may reference the offer that was made; (c) have witnesses like his parents testify as to the circumstances of the offer; etc.

GREAT question. This is where the so-called "meeting of the minds" comes into play when determining whether an agreement was reached between the parties to be bound. In this kid's case, it seems like a coach promised the $100k NIL earnings, but the UNLV collectives (i.e. the parties that would actually be paying) weren't aware of those promises, and never signed onto that deal. In that case, the parties to the agreement (the kid and the collectives) did not have a "meeting of the minds" There's also a bit to say about the apparent agency of the coach, which I believe gets more to your point. The kid believed that the coach had proper authority to make the $100k offer on behalf of the collectives when the coach clearly did not. This is a fact question for a jury: Did the kid know that the coach had no authority to bind the collectives to an agreement? If he didn't know, were there signs or indications to prove that he should have known? If he didn't know, and there were obvious signs, was he deceived by the coach? Tons more questions go into evaluating that type of argument but I think you get the picture.

Your friendly neighborhood lawyer here: At least in Texas, oral agreements are generally enforceable, so long as there is a clear offer, acceptance, and meeting of the minds. All three of those things have been highly litigated over decades, but the basis of an agreement is certain possible as an oral contract.

I can bet before any sort of overhaul of the NIL system takes place, this loophole will be closed. More than likely, the NCAA will restrict how and when a player can "take" a redshirt year. That being said, if the UNLV NIL Collectives really did fleece the kid, then this whole story is on their incompetence. What else do you want to bet that they couldn't find enough donors to fulfill the promises they were handing out?

I bet you're a real treat at parties.

All that and you said literally nothing new, lol.

Because you've got upwards of 30,000+ folks all trying to connect in a condensed area all at once.