meangreenJW

We get it. Anything different than what you and your boy RV did is dumb. I’ve been a member of both for over 20 years. Nothing changed but the name. I asked a mgsf member why the change one time. Part of the logic explained to me was many people had no idea where the money went and several out of town donors had no interest in being part of a club so changing the name made it more clear what was being supported. Made sense to me. If you live where you can’t buy season tickets, you probably don’t need to be a member of a “club” but supporting scholarships might be of interest. The name isn’t the damn issue. The issue is through a half dozen ADs and three decades we don’t have enough people that care. That’s pretty much the extent of it. Changing the name back would not bring any more money or donors and there wasn’t much history and tradition in MGC. Same program. Ballpark same number of donors. Actually brings in more money now than it use too. if there’s so much valuable tradition in the MGC name use it for your collective.

I think this is a bit of oversimplification. I've seen dozens of posts from other athletic departments about similar issues this year and last. Most businesses (athletic departments included I'm sure) have experienced massive turnover. Don't know about you but I've experienced service issues at restaurants, airports, hotels, pretty much everywhere post pandemic. Added to this is the athletic department uses several 3rd party contractors on game day (parking folks are a 3rd party, ushers/event staff are mostly 3rd party as well, perhaps concessions is too) I would imagine there's been massive turnover for those companies. I'm trying to think back but I think the was the first really big crowd since COVID. Not here to make excuses, because I was pissed myself at waiting 40 plus minutes to get to my parking. I think owning the mistake was the right move for the ath dept and working to make it better was as well. Fans can and should expect better. But saying "this isn't their first rodeo" is oversimplifying the situation a bit IMO.

Makes sense. It's kind of what I was trying to say with less experience. But corporations (and really all businesses) care about one thing making money. They will fill there store space with what will bring the highest sales. It's that simple really. For this reason, anytime I go into a space with good UNT selections I buy something. I just want to validate them carrying it (and I can never have enough green). We can gripe on here all we want. That will not help. Buying stuff will

Huh? All any retailer has to do is fill out a licensing form and agree to the appropriate accounting of merchandise sold and send the University their share. I know htis because my wife has a small business making jewelry. It took her 30 minutes to fill out the form and she had approval back in days. If she wasn't to do a design that isn't pre approved (normal logos and colors) she has to submit that for special approval but otherwise she is good to go. Academy is almost certainly licensed. If they only have UT Austin out, it's because they think that's what will sale. The store makes that decision, not UNT. The store is the right place to reach out IMO. If you owned a store, you would let UNT tell you what to sell and put on display?

A couple years ago I thought about the track thing myself(dropping it for baseball that is). Two issues I found. 1) Baseball is quite a bit more expensive than track at the insitutitons that sponsored both when I looked it up (and especially at the ones that try to be competitive in baseball). But more important, is track actually is considered three seperate NCAA sports (indoor track, outdoor track, cross-country). I believe we have the minimum number of sports at UNT so we would have to replace track with baseball and two other men's sports (no idea what it would be) but that would definitely end up costing quite bit. Online I found this. To compete in FBS, a school must compete in at least 16 varsity sports, including football. Of those 16, at least six must be men's sports and at least eight must be women's sports. UNT has exactly 16 sports. 6 men and 10 women teams. So dropping track would mean, adding 3 men's teams plus any women's teams that would have to be added for title ix.

I think the coverage is probably as good as it's ever been. DMN and TV never cover us much. Never have in my 40 plus years as a fan. The athletic department puts out quite a few short videos, pictures, clips. Vito puts out something multiple times a week. Reed has been a nice addition (and much needed after Brune was shifted to mostly LSU coverage). I think someitmes folks don't compare apples to apples. No, UNT probably doesn't have the same coverage as schools with 3-4 times the budget. I also follow Texas, Tech, Wichita State and Tulsa because I have passing interest in those programs. UNT dwarfs both Wichita State and Tulsa in content for just about all sports. I can remember a decade ago we had no full time video people in the athletic department. I now count five on the directory. Texas Tech produces more content but they have more than double the people too. Lastly, different coaches approach media access differently. I don't see Seth as a guy that really wants a bunch of coverage on what the team is running, personnel strengths & weaknesses, etc. I might be wrong but I'd guess, he's a keep it close to the vest kind of guy.

You keep referring to the interview and saying WB said he didn't care about winning. That is not what he said. I went back and listened. i'm attempting to paraphrase what he said but basically he said in conversations/evaluations with coaches, fans might be surprised how little of the conversation is focused on wins/losses. There's conversations around recruitment/retention, development, academic success, etc. etc. and then he said all of those things that contribute to success athletically and academically. That is not the same as saying winning isn't important. It is basically saying what most coaches/admins always say and this focusing on process is what's more important. I'm mixed about HCSL but I have never gotten the sense that Smatresk nor Baker believe winning isn't important.

I think folks are reading way too much into this. The move into the AAC created an opening in 2023. Most football scheduling is done 10 years in advance. Not a lot of options in 2023 which probably helped dictate this series. I always liked La Tech and personally like the series but I'm not sure there's much to debate on this one. There can't be more than 2-3 options in the openings created in 23, 24, 25 by SMU and Memphis games becoming conference games.

Same here. I can't remember ever having an issue and the ticket office has usually been responsive.

I'm for our players but really? The young talent that hasn't come anywhere near close to competing against a quality team? We're going to make a decision based on fear of losing them? We lost a bunch in the portal last year anyway. Keeping Littrell didn't stop that.

COVID was a nationwide issue affecting everyone. It's not like we were disadvantaged. In fact, it had a more profound effect on teams on the east and west coast because they had much more stringent protocols (Cal is still being wrecked by COVID). If anything I think we benefited from COVID, we got to cancel A&M, UAB and Houston. All three would have been losses and the UTEP game was moved here. We barely won. I have little doubt we'd have lost that game if it were in El Paso.

Except he actually doesn't you just want to believe he does. I get it. You're pro Seth. Maybe he's your neighbor. I've been a fan too and I wouldn't be angry if he got another year at 5-7 although I lean towards making a change. But saying he has the same resume as Fuente isn't true. I took the time to look up the most fair analytic comparison,the Sagarin ratings. This is what each coach inherited and what they did with it. I started three years before they took over and then ran the numbers for their tenure. You could argue they took over the same quality of team (if anything Memphis was slightly worse). But Fuente's success way surpasses Littrells. Seth's best team was in 2018 when he was #83 in the Sagarin. 4 of his 6 seasons he finished lower than 130. There's only 130 FBS teams so that means that using unbiased analytical statistics, there were FCS teams that finished higher than UNT in those years. I'm not saying Fuente is the best coach for UNT I'll Wren and Neal determine that but what I will say is the job Fuente did at Memphis was considerably more impressive than what Seth has done at UNT and arguing otherwise isn't is based on logic or facts. Year Sagarain Year Sagarin 2013 63 2009 130 2014 144 2010 173 2015 180 2011 182 2016 146 Littrell 2012 123 Fuente 2017 101 Littrell 2013 107 Fuente 2018 83 Littrell 2014 39 Fuente 2019 133 Littrell 2015 48 Fuente 2020 143 Littrell 2021 134 Littrell

Probably because Memphis was 5-31 in the three previous seasons before Fuente got there and that was in CUSA. He was actually 17-15 in the AAC overall but 12-4 his final two years and left the talent that Norvell won with as well. Memphis might have been the worst FBS program in the country when he took over. 4 2018 American 8 6 0 .571 5 3 0 .625 2.27 -3.88 Mike Norvell (8-6) Birmingham Bowl-L 5 2017 American 10 3 0 .769 7 1 0 .875 8.52 -0.79 16 25 Mike Norvell (10-3) Liberty Bowl-L 6 2016 American 8 5 0 .615 5 3 0 .625 2.96 -1.11 Mike Norvell (8-5) Boca Raton Bowl-L 7 2015 American 9 4 0 .692 5 3 0 .625 6.55 0.16 15 Justin Fuente (9-3), Darrell Dickey (0-1) Birmingham Bowl-L 8 2014 American 10 3 0 .769 7 1 0 .875 7.22 -4.25 25 25 Justin Fuente (10-3) Miami Beach Bowl-W 9 2013 American 3 9 0 .250 1 7 0 .125 -7.41 -2.66 Justin Fuente (3-9) 10 2012 CUSA 4 8 0 .333 4 4 0 .500 -11.09 -5.34 Justin Fuente (4-8) 11 2011 CUSA 2 10 0 .167 1 7 0 .125 -18.17 -6.17 Larry Porter (2-10) 12 2010 CUSA 1 11 0 .083 0 8 0 .000 -19.43 -1.51 Larry Porter (1-11) 13 2009 CUSA 2 10 0 .167 1 7 0 .125 -12.06 -0.81 Tommy West (2-10)

Successful 2nd chance guys (like Dykes) generally have a way higher success rate than taking a chance on the up and coming guys. I'm a fan of Seth Littrell the person but he's had six years. He hasn't beaten anyone worth a damn (100 or higher) since 2017. And even the biggest homer can't look at these last three years and point to any measure of progress. There's risk to any hire we would make, but what we get with Seth is a known. And it isn't good.

For the exact same reasons UNT is looking at new, so is OU. https://www.oudaily.com/sports/oklahoma-basketball-take-a-look-at-the-proposal-for-new/article_778d4232-9d8c-11e7-8d2f-bfd96c530d6d.html The old concrete structures are next to impossible to modernize without spending more than a new one would cost. Lloyld Noble has no suites, club or premium and they never come close to filling it because it's too big. You can't create supply & demand and you can't make any money off of premium seating. It's almost the exact same issues as the Super Pit.The Ferrell Center in Waco has the same issues and is being replaced. The only school that has successfully renovated one of these types of structures is Houston which spent nearly $70 million in 2017 dollars on Hoffeinz. They have a really nice club but still no suites for that price tag which would probably be closer to $100 million in todays dollars. UNT could have a hell of a brand new arena with plenty of restrooms, ADA accomodations and premium seating right sized for less than Houston spent on their renovation.