NorthTexasWeLove

In theory, yes. But UT and ATM share T.V. markets as well as key recruiting territory. UH is in that market too. OU and TCU share TV markets and key recruiting territory as well. Cal and Stanford. FSU and UF UCLA and USC The entire tobacco road conundrum...NC State, Duke, and UNC all within a half hour of one another. Then Wake Forest less than 2 hours away and ECU right down the road. WKU and MTSU 1 1/2 hours from each other. FIU and FAU 1 hr from each other. And there are countless other examples of this. So there may be a smidgen of truth to your statement, it is by no means an end all.

Always give people in green a quick GMG, and go out of the way to do so.

This tourney has been very much chalk more than past tourneys. So THIS years bball season is a poor example. Though what you're saying has truth to it, but we never get a Loyola - George Mason - VCU - Butler type moment in football. And as those moments helps bball ratings, one has to assume it would help football ratings. Also, Villanova winning the natty 2 of the last 3 is comparable to an AAC team winning the football national title or someone compatible.

It's unfortunate. The eyeballs to be unlocked is there for the taking, but they just want to accept the given % of eyeballs with the safe and proven formula. Rather than reaching and making a platform for all of CFB. But, hey, at least we know who's the back up to the back up of Tua. And we know Quinnen Williams' favorite song and Trevor Lawrence's favorite color. Yay us

Sure. But this is unrealistic. This is how money is generated, TV space. The NCAA is not going to let anyone put their hands in their pockets for any reason.

The lack of attendance is due to the lack of parity. There is 0 parity so why should there be increased interest. Over the last 10 years it has been boiled down to about 12 teams with a competitive advantage and real shot to win a national championship. Everyone else, including a large portion of the 'P5', have a minimal to 0% chance. The game has been monopolized with the help of the media. They push the brands that garner the eyeballs because it creates more money for them. How deep of an analysis have you heard mainstream sports media give of Indiana or Purdue? Wake Forest or Boston College? Arizona or Colorado? Vanderbilt or Mississippi State? Iowa State or Oklahoma State? The answer on any given season, season over season, is very little to none.

She is a she. ThE fIRsT WoMaN cOmMiSsIoNeR.....oOoOoOoOo.

Yeah, that's actually pretty unfortunate.

Don't you have someone's day to go ruin? And yes, I doubted the 2018 defense. What basis was there to point to it being average? And even then, it shit the bed when it mattered most...vs LaTech and USU. Let awful teams push the ball such as Rice, ODU and UTSA. Or was I dreaming? And JD strokes this staffs ego at any and all stops. All I was saying was tread lightly with that. It can turn slippery fast.

Yah. Yes. Sure thing.

Sure it does. If you're too small minded to see that then that's on you.

It's not about winning vs THESE teams. It's about future longevity, financially and nationally. CUSA clearly doesn't present that as a possibility. And CUSA is NOT going to be better. We have shit leadership at the top. Success trickles down in an organization setup such as this one, not vice versa. They go to bat financially for its constituents via TV contracts, post season play in baseball, basketball and football. Yet, our CUSA office doesn't do anything. Hell, they don't even recommend increasing our SoS for better positioning for our good teams season over season. They are collecting checks and that is it. Therefore, this conference will always be what is currently is.

Because you are constantly sucking off this staff and administration regardless of what transpires. I tried to be slightly tactful. I hope this is clearer.

Yeah. I think he's confused on CB coach though. I believe he was let go and ended up at a lesser perceived program. But, to point it out because it needs to be pointed out, there is no need to reach around on this staff all the time. It's OK to be 100% objective regardless of whatever assistant to the assistant administrator you get your "inside" information from. I only state this because when so many people were so keen on NEVER pointing out deficiencies for so long, Dan McCarney, Tony Benford, Todd Dodge and Rick Villarreal happened. When absolute suckage is taking place, it needs to be pointed out from mountain tops; micro (game level) and macro (season to season and administrative level).

Coaches should not be allowed to do this kind of stuff. I have never been a fan of this. It allows people to forget about the issue, sweep it under the rug and eventually skirt around it. And, of course, the player (usually) always gets to come back and play. Then, a few months goes by, and there's a Baylor situation on our hands again. Transparency should be dictated regardless of who the player is or the talent level.

Outside of Hamilton, most of those players were fillers. These year, that role will be lifted and they will be counted on to make significant contributions in key moments during key games. We do not know if they have the physical capability to do so because we haven't really seen it yet. I understand all of your points, but there's a lot of assuming in there.

Mr. Swan, UNT is a stepping stone until we can pay our HC a 4 million dollar salary while having a 2 million dollar assistant salary pool. Though your article is enriching and positive, specifically for The Daily, it still is seemingly shooting at a moving target. We, like about 80 other FBS programs, are stepping stones. Coaches have a competitive spirit. With that, comes an enlarged EGO. They THINK they are the wonderkind and can take their philosophy and have great success with it anywhere they go (no matter that the same philosophy is being used at about 80% of programs). Since the chips are stacked against us (and about [at least] 80-90 other FBS programs) it only affords them about 30 programs where they have a legitimate shot to really win a national title. They want that shot. And since we do not have a 6 million dollar salary pool for coaches at UNT, they move on because they also want that money.

For real, might as well. Our offense in its natural form is a dink and dunk philosophy with explosive plays sprinkled in when the defense cheats up to eliminate our dinks and dunks. Having a big, broad shouldered TE out there as a stationary target is a huge benefit, especially with an undersized QB. Our TEs (Smith & Chumley) combined for 32 catches, 300 yds and 1 TD. That is grossly underutilized and that has to get better.

I am not sure as to why people think this D could be just as "good" or even better than last years defense. We are only losing our best defensive players on all three levels. We are replacing the best linemen with unproven players + Novil. All are smaller than what we lost and far less experienced. We are losing the best defensive playmaker on the D in EJ (not to mention his sidekick in Garner) and replacing him (them) with complete unknowns. We are losing half of our secondary and hoping to backfill with practical unknowns. Not sure how anyone can think this will stay status quo, defensively. I mean shit, I hope it does. I hope it gets better. But, there is 0 definitive evidence saying we will stay pat, let alone improve. If anything, there is evidence of a decline. DC just has to make sure it's not a substantial one. We can be 2017 bad on defense if we're 2017 good on offense. I don't prefer this approach, but recruiting tendencies sort of point to this direction. Only time will tell.

And what makes you think that?

This defense is going to be 2017 bad. Hopefully this new OC can pepper the scoreboard with points all game long for 12 straight games. He may have to for us to not go 6-6 or so.

Yeah, you're kind of accurate in that.

Bag man article is a good read. I posted it in another thread a few weeks back.

FML. We are in a vicious cycle of irrelevance. And this absolute dumpster fire of a conference commissioner is a disgrace. She has done nothing - nada - zilch.