GMG_Dallas

It's literally the top MWC programs with 2 pretty good former P5 programs and is about to have the top AAC programs. How is it an opinion that it will the best G5 program? If you take the best programs from 2 conferences, it's not crazy to say you've severely devalued those conferences and are now better than them. Actually seems pretty logical.

You're all worried about the talent fee when I'm just worried about how many more transfers we'll be losing to Marshall. Now we know why Earle went there.

Vito also pointed out Wyatt Young is now a co-starter with Sides.

Hey I'm not falling apart. Twas just a preliminary observation.

Not good for us UNT fans.

UCF is the only BIG 12 market in Florida. If we were hours away from SMU then it could happen but we literally share the same market. Why in the world would the ACC want two schools in the same market? The PAC and BIG 10 are the only major conferences with no Texas market. We're not going to the BIG 10 so PAC it is.

I find it hard to believe the PAC would commit to that amount of money in exit fees unless they have a pretty good idea on how much their media deal will be with those schools and that the deal is worth it. Same with any other schools they add.

Sure. I just don't see it happening with us being in the same market but we should be doing everything possible to put some great runs together.

CW is owned by Paramount. I don't know exact details of Paramount but it's a relatively new company that stems from a Viacom and CBS merger. CW has a streaming app and is looking for sports content. So is Amazon and so is Apple TV. There will be bids as the other major conferences are set for the next 5+ years. Also worth noting the current MWC deal is with CBS and Fox which has been at about $5 mil per school and expires when the new PAC is starts. This means they'll also be looking to fill some content and could buy a few games. And understood on your stance on the PAC. Obviously it has to all make sense financially. My concern is the top AAC schools will leave to the ACC when that collapses. I doubt we'll be included with SMU already being there. Then we're in CUSA 2.0. This is an opportunity to get out before that happens. We'll see how this plays out.

Do you, or anybody else throwing around numbers of $6 million, realize the PAC2 has a media deal with CW for this season with an estimated value of $5-$9 million for each? Just two schools getting what you and others seem to think the PAC would get as a whole conference. It's not crazy to think the new PAC would get upwards of $10-$15 million per. Also, as it's been mentioned USF, Memphis, and Tulane are not in the same boat as us. They're favorites to join the ACC. They're also much further east than we are. The logistics are nowhere near the same and, as it's been said, they're getting full AAC shares. We are not.

The structuring of our system makes no sense and does nothing to elevate our brand.

Some of these are obvious issues. Stuff like targeting the community college transfers and 1st generation students has no bearing on success. We want a Tillman Fertitta. Did his parents go to college? Here's another issue you're missing outside of lowering admission standards and being the value choice. We are sending what should be our premiere schools elsewhere. Law School? UNT Dallas. Health Sciences Center? Fort Worth. Why are those not IN Denton? We're so focused on building up our system schools that the primary campus is suffering. Those schools being at the primary campus would elevate the perception of the University of North Texas. Follow that up by raising admissions standards and erase the notion of being a value college and you'd start elevating the quality of graduates. I don't know how you correct the issue of sending Law and Medical schools elsewhere. You can correct the low admissions standards and great value walmart brand label today. It needs to happen. Otherwise the UNT degree will continue to be viewed as average.

Co-DC and linebackers coach at Miami. Probably out of our price range but I'm there's options out there for sure.

Experienced. Always go for experienced (at the college level). If you can get both then do that. Wonder if we can get a recently failed HC as a DC. The power programs do it. You can be a great coordinator and a terrible HC.

The highlights for this game would be better be better be suited on an Only fans or porn site. I don't think UNT or the AAC can post content that graphic.

I am too. Just pointing out blocking has been an issue. I'm not the first to point it out and I won't be the last. This guy has noticed it too. Wonder if he knows a thing or two about blocking.

You need good blocking for that. If Eric Morris is dialing up the screens and quicker plays, it's likely because he doesn't believe the line can hold up. If SFA is any indication, he's not wrong. Our O line has struggled.

I was looking through college football schedules yesterday. It started with the Rice UNT 77-20 game so I looked at the Rice schedule that year thinking they must have won the conference only to see they lost to Tulsa 63-28. Same thought. "Wow Tulsa must have been great!" Checked their schedule and saw they lost to Houston 70-30. Tulsa was great that year by the way. Anyways, checked Houston's schedule since they walloped Tulsa and saw they went 8-5. No crazy losses but it reminded me anybody can lose big to anybody on any given week. This helped me calm down a bit. I'm still upset about yesterday. Really, I'm embarrassed. But these games can happen. I've tempered my emotions until next Saturday. I need to see us do to Wyoming what Tech did to us. That was a team that was upset and probably had some not so nice moments in practice during the week. We need to see the same on Saturday. We need to see a team motivated by a pissed off coaching staff. Let's go. GMG

We're just waiting on the new fiscal year. The budget for positive experiences has run out.

The westcoast PAC schools are no further than the eastcoast AAC schools. Just need a few PAC travel partners and geography no longer becomes a concern when compared to our current setup.

Yes the AAC will need to come up with something. I wonder if they can bump the money UTSA, UNT, and Rice are getting to 80% or 90%. Even then, we know the next deal will be smaller than the current one. We also know Memphis, Tulane, and USF will be frontrunners to join the ACC when that blows up. If we're offered the PAC, I view it like being offered a life raft. If Memphis, Tulane, and USF leave what's left is CUSA schools plus Navy, Tulsa, Temple, ECU, and Army. Now who thinks that list is better than the new PAC?

C Rod has covered the starter math. That's reason number 1. Reason number 2 is once the next AAC deal is signed without Cincy, UCF, and Houston it'll be a fraction of the current deal which means our 50% of AAC money becomes even smaller. Reason number 3 is the new PAC already has 3 programs who've been NCAA tournament regulars for a few years now. Should they continue their basketball success in the new PAC, that's more NCAA tournament credits flowing in which means more money than the AAC which is a 2-bid conference at best right now. That means the difference AAC vs PAC money becomes even greater. Reason number 4 is the PAC name, even in the new form, holds more weight than the AAC. Adding the top MWC programs and some of the top AAC programs will separate it from the MWC and AAC and create a clear gap in prestige. Something else to consider about Tulane, Memphis, and South Florida is they're a better geographical fit for the ACC and that looks to be imploding soon. With our location, we're not further from the ACC than we are the PAC. The PAC is the best available conference and they have openings. We need to latch on to the best opportunities we can or we'll keep finding ourselves on the outside looking in.

So basically shut down the entire athletic department because Dallas has pro football and basketball or what? It's really not complicated. The smaller the athletic budget, the harder it is to compete in football in the FBS. Some small FBS programs have figured out how to do it. UNT is not one of them. Our budget would allow us to compete in basketball, though. What it comes down to for me is I don't care what we excel at but excel at something. We can't be good not great at basketball and average not terrible at football and expect to thrive. I'd rather be great at one and terrible at the other than where we are now. We're close with basketball. Why not make the investment to be great there? I'd rather have a nationally respected basketball program even if it means terrible football. It'd be one more nationally respected program than what we have now. Right now we have nothing.

All of you with this mindset about basketball haven't paid attention to the Mountain West Conference the past few years. They've kept rosters mostly together and retooled as needed despite NIL. More importantly, they repeatedly earned their conference and themselves NCAA credits which is revenue. So your solution is to shut everything down then. Got it. Being the BB farm system in this world, if that happened, would lead to repeated NCAA tournament appearances. You can reload 5-7 basketball players on a yearly basis and be successful. You know how I know? Because programs like Kentucky did it for years while churning out one-and-done prospects to the NBA. If some of the top juco or HS prospects want to come to UNT for a year or two and raise their stocks to jump to a bigger program, that's much easier to manage than having 77 new players every year on a football team. You want consistency if you can but getting a new rosters in basketball means getting 12 guys to gel as opposed to getting 77 guys to gel in football. And yes, I realize we wouldn't be getting the talent that a Kentucky would be getting. The point is you can rebuild rosters yearly in basketball and create chemistry every year. Basketball needs to be the way for us. Every year we don't reallocate money to basketball is a year and ressources wasted.