keith

Strength (or maybe safety) in numbers? I think once you get beyond a certain number you'd probably operate as two (or more) "conferences" within a larger virtual conference umbrella.

Uh oh...they have ribbon lighting!

Well, that's getting us to the next level alright. Little did we know that's what they meant.

Wardly, we never do or if we do it’s a usually in a negative contagion. Not sure we want to be a backfill for a reloaded MWC anyway, but your point is valid We are rarely in the conversation (even if it’s just message board fodder). Sorry to say, but our AD leadership has failed UNT for the last 30 years. Oh, sure they have done the bare minimum to get us where we are, but have not realized what could have been MHO. I’m hard on our AD (and will continue to be) because we pay a lot for its services and I want more for our investment.

We did not need a substantial upgrade to the program. We were already on solid footing, but were told we needed someone else to take us to the next level. In no way were we portrayed as a failed program that needed to be rebuilt. It was going to be immediately onward and upward with the new coaching staff. We took a significant step backward IMHO. We were supposed to be competing for conference championships. Instead, we had a losing record in the first year and are now by most polls placed in the bottom half of our conference. By my analysis and grading last year, Morris was solidly in the bottom half of first year coaches in FBS. Swing and a miss by our AD at time when we needed to keep some semblance of positive momentum going. In terms of attractiveness as a realignment target we are 102 out of 133. Location is just about the only thing we have going for us. I don't think Morris will be here beyond year 3. Either he continues to lead us as a middle-of-the-pack program and send him on his way or he actually has major success this season and next and parlays that into a bigger gig. As a university, we need to tighten up our admission standards and improve our 4-year graduation rates.

I've been doing some review of the AD's annual financial statements. For the 2023 report expenses for AD Support Staff were $8,432,941 (just below the $9,223,837 in coach salaries) with any additional $4,083,277 for "Admin Overhead" for a total of $12,516,218. So a little one $1M a month in direct and indirect expenses for the AD and staff. Are we getting our money's worth?

I doubt the New AAU is a replacement of the existing AAU members. It looks like the foundation is simply suggesting an updated or modernized set of metrics they feel is important now. From the slide ... "focused on what its education policy team..." and "...have been judged by their team for exceptional success across a broader array of metrics..." Given these two statements you can probably guess what the broader array of metrics the policy team feels is important now.

A few years ago when we were still in CUSA, Altimore Collins & Company released a report/analysis on conference realignment covering a broad set of categories (not just football wins) that play a part in determining which schools fit a conference's makeup. In many ways these were areas important to university boards and presidents. Here's a slide from that presentation. It's not clear exactly what the relationship is between AAU status and New AAU status. Is one the big league and the other the minor league? Will the AAU expand beyond what it is now or will the New AAU take over? The author doesn't seem to think very highly of the New AAU designation, but he listed those universities in green (including UNT) that carried the New AAU designation at the time. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but he went out of his way to question the legitimacy of fellow CUSA members FIU, UAB, UTSA and MWC UNM being on the New AAU list, yet didn't mention UNT at all. Did he consider us more worthy than the other three for New AAU or not even worthy of a negative mention? I take it as a good thing as there were plenty of other New AAU members he didn't zing, so I assume he felt we were part of that group. You'll need to zoom in to read his notes/comments.

How is it possible to end up with a sole finalist for this position? There was really no one else? Initially underwhelmed...maybe there's *something* there, but it's unclear from the release why he is the right person at this time for UNT. Just some warmed over platitudes. I look forward to hearing Mr. Keller's vision for UNT.

It happens every year around this time. Mean Green fans, now several months removed from the previous season, go through a sort of collective amnesia. This feeling of optimism will increase with each passing week. Maybe a bit of backsliding during 2-a-days or during any bit of bad news, but will hit its zenith just before the start of the season. It's part of our coping mechanism.

So, that puts us about #93 in the real world?

These are the best uniforms we've worn in the last few years. Clean and uniquely North Texas. This year's looks like someone spent about 5 minutes thinking about them. We have a lazy AD.

Not much of an update. More like a fund-raising plea, several non-updates and bunch of coach-speak/AD platitudes. Blah, blah, blah. "...we have several contingencies in motion as we plan and prepare for the future ahead." -- OK, what future do you see specifically, what are your plans, what are you preparing for and what are the contingencies? What is the best/worst case scenario you are preparing for? "...most collectives at AAC member institutions are targeting $1-2M for the sport of football and $600K+ for the sport of men's basketball." OK, what are collectives associated with UNT athletics targeting? "...Some institutions in our league are raising more than this." OK, which institutions and how much more? "...Our staff is actively fundraising for our Athletics Center expansion project." Great, how's it going? What are your goals and how are you progressing towards them? "...we are hoping to complete this project in two phases." OK, what are these phases, when do you anticipate each one starting and completing...2 years, 5 years, 10 years? Please do better.

Facilities are table stakes these days in the business of college athletics...besides, the athletes don't want to be walking around in sub-standard facilities with cash falling out of their pockets (hahaha).

Yeah, this could get real messy. Does/did any college athlete (or cheerleader or band member for that matter) sign a release to allow the networks to film them or use their likeness in any advertisements promoting the event?

Hard to hide 6'9" and 312 pounds. Seems like the frame alone would generate some interest.

Maybe a little unfair on my part, but as far as creating "excitement" around this announcement especially in the social media space, it was pretty underwhelming. Glad they are trying, but I don't think this is going to inspire more students to attend.

I'm not sure conference membership is going to be the determining factor on where the line is snapped. There is a lot of dead weight in some of the so-called P4 (and even P2) conferences that don't really belong above the line. So rather than giving a handful of G5s a life boat, it's more likely that a lot of schools that think they are safe, will find themselves on the outside looking in just like the rest of us.

Now? 4. By they end of fall camp when we are world beaters again and a shoo-in for the conference championship game, I'll probably be up to a 4.5.

A small part of this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The decision-makers at the various networks lockup conferences with contracts and put the match-ups they deem to be the most desirable in the best time-slots to maximize eye-balls and low-and-behold, those get the highest ratings. Of course that confirms in their mind that they have this thing figured out and the cycle repeats. The 37K viewership for UNT/Temple was on ESPNU, but let's face it, none of the games on the U pulled in big numbers with most under 50K. We had 88K for the UNT/Cal game. The most viewed game of the season on ESPNU was the Memphis/Missouri game at 181K. Put the UNT/SMU game on ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox at a desirable time-slot and I suspect we'd double or triple the 618K we got on a Friday at 9:00p on ESPN2. Same teams, same game, but different numbers IMHO simply due to network and timeslot.

I thought our recruiting focus was on the state of Texas and more narrowly the Dallas-Ft. Worth talent pool. So the recruits are already living in/experiencing the benefits you list. I guess it would not be luring talent here as much as keeping it here and pointing out the negative aspects of going elsewhere. I think the problem we face is that in the mind of 17-18 year old high school players, there is an allure of being recruited out of state by so called "bigger" programs. It confers upon them an additional status symbol to strut in front of their friends and peers.

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The idea that a high school football player is worth $13.85M or $9.5M is ludicrous and grotesque, yet here we are. The "adults" dangling this in front of him should be ashamed. I hope the young man wins his case.

In the back of my mind whenever I see these types of conference moves, I wonder if the conference is preparing for/expecting one or more current members to leave.

I'd hate to be responsible for changing the light bulbs! Back on topic, I thought Kansas to the B1G was the talk of the town a couple years ago.

Is there a limit to the number of rostered players or just a limit on the number of scholarship players. I'm not sure how the scholarship thing/limit really works in the age of NIL. At scholarship limit? Get a big enough NIL deal to cover the cost of attendance (tuition, R&B, books, fees, etc.) and then some. Maybe not something UNT is in the position to do, but what's keeping Deep Pockets U from having more "scholarship" players on the roster than the limit allows?