wardly

It's sad you can count the number of times we were at 80% of capacity. It's also sad that we have never had a sellout. Perhaps instead of us posters pimping UTEP perhaps our athletic department might ask them how they have done it.

To me its a "marketing thing " for the university when you have an opportunity to be on ESPN . It's not like we are on the DUCE frequently .Why don't you ask a marketing professional that you know what more could of been done. If they say "nothing of consequence " then I will drop the matter. In fact, I will drop the matter now as my "give a shit" meter just went off.

Am I the only geezer who doesn't tweet?

Well, we do have a Department of Marketing. Why not ask them as a project to put together a marketing plan for UNT athletics ? It would engage the classes, involve the students, and create a " bottom up" vs. " top down " approach". Our Advertising Department could be included as well. My point is that we have on campus resources that require no budget and would bring a fresh approach to selling " Mean Green " athletics. I also would ask them for a specific plan to target Denton, which I feel is the key to getting butts in the seats. Just an old man's opinion.

It's a shame that Bleed Green got almost no support from our Athletic Department who wouldn't recognize a marketing opportunity if it bit them on the ass.

So why does your post apply to me, as I am only stating the obvious. UNT has played championship men's basketball for the past several years with an average attendance of 4,000 in a 10,000 seat seat arena. Besides verbally supporting North Texas what have you personally done to increase attendance? I have been on 4 church boards and the key to growth is to believe in your faith and bring a friend or neighbor to church. This isn't rocket science . Also you can count on only so many fans from the Metroplex to commute to Denton for sporting events. Our Athletic Department should have an idea as to where our fans come from even if they can't spell " MARKETING".[Quite honestly their lack of apparent interest in marketing is an embarrassment to our School of Business.] In my opinion the key to UNT growing support and increasing attendance is in Denton and if I were 'King For A Day" that's the market I would target. At 79 I gave up my floor seats and don't attend many basketball games because I just can't see well enough at night to drive in fro Frisco. I also surrendered my club seats because I have had the COVID once and try to avoid large crowds, although that statement is something of an oxymoron considering our average attendance. In summary since my freshman year of 1961 I have supported the Eagles to the best of my financial ability, made some really neat road trips [ the one to Army with my 15 year old grandson was special], and continue to make an annual donation to the Athletic Department. However at my age I will leave it to others to " grow the business" and wish them well in doing so. We all can " talk the talk", but to succeed we need to "walk the walk."

Amazing that our benchmark is 6&6 with bowl invitation. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. About 2/3's of D1A football teams get a bowl invitation and SL has yet to win one.

Do you really think Denton and UNT would provide the fan support that Wichita did?

Are we going to have a run based offense as we had at end of last year?

Some where along the way a team usually loses a game they were supposed to win and wins one they were supposed to lose. Hard to argue with 6 & 6 but my money is on 5 & 7. We lost some good players on defense and we still have question mark at QB. Also I don't know how good the O-Line is. They played great against UTSA but tanked in Frisco Bowl.I would love to see us get over the hump at 7 & 5.

OPPS. No wonder I took Basic Accounting 101 three times. Oh Well! The only issue I see for the Big 12 is how important is it for BYU and UCF to have a "travel partner". West Virginia finely got one with the addition of Cincy so there doesn't appear to be a sense of urgency.

I don't think Oregon or Washing are BIG Bound as they each don't bring $100 million per year increase in revenue which is buy in for BIG's poker game. Notre Dame is negotiating with NBC on new contract plus Irish are legally bound to ACC until 2036 with huge buyout penalty. The PAC is negotiating with ESPN and FOX to determine their value and will wait until BIG 12 does the same in 2024. It appears to me that both will do nothing until both conferences know their value without their respective bell cows, which is estimated to be 20% less with them. I do think that if they don't merge both would like to add two programs to get to 12. The problem for both is finding 2 that would bring the same market value as the rest of the conference. Boise might get close, but I can't think of another G5 program that gets close to $35 million per year.

Glad to have them on our schedule

Texas Tech booster club raising money to pay players $25,000.

I follow New Mexico State to some extent and they would not play football in the WAC unless it was D1A and they had no other choice. They have a very limited budget which is why they play so many money games. They ran the numbers and discovered , at least for them, that they would lose a lot more money at D1AA even in a conference like the Big Sky than being a D1A independent. Their reasoning is that fewer D1A programs would schedule them if they dropped down to D1AA and they can't afford the loss in revenue. I also think that if the PAC poached SDSU and Boise that they would try to work out an arrangement with the AAC rather than add the Aggies or Miners. Just an old man's opinion.

I remember when DD was coach the were in high 60'or mid 70's one year which is highest I can remember since we returned to D1A football. We may have bee ranked higher in one of Mason Fine's years but i don't remember. Historically we get a 3 digit pre season ranking and play to it.

I heard they reached out to the Southland Conference

If the BIG 10 wanted Oregon and Washington they would have invited them when USC and UCLA joined. They will wait on Notre Dame but the ACC members tv rights go to conference until mid 2030's should they leave. In addition Notre Dame has a legal contract with the ACC that if the Irish join a conference for football it must be them. I am not an attorney but looks like Notre Dame is bound to the ACC for the next 10 plus years. If the PAC wants to be considered one of the "bigger boys" [SEC & Big 10 are the only two "Big Boys" ] then they need to merge with the Big 12. Their tv value is hampered by their time zone and adding SDSU and SMU, doesn't get them on equal footing with the BIg 12. On the other hand if there is no merger and PAC stays firm the BIG 12 still needs a travel partner for BYU and UCF. Boise or Colorado State work for the Cougars as Memphis and USF do for the Knights. However with the exception of Boise none of them bring the eyeballs that UCF, Cincy, BYU, and Houston did. The existing Big 12 members would need to play the long game and accept less tv revenue with new additions short term, but since they are taking about a 20% pay cut with loss of Teas and OU that would be a tough pill to swallow.

Texas targets appear to be SMU and Houston. SDSU is also under consideration from what I read. What makes sense to me is for the Big 12 and PAC to merge creating the " United Athletic Conference" with two divisions. The PAC Division adds SDSU and BYU moves west to have 12 programs. The Big 12 Division adds either Memphis or USF for another dozen. Initially the PAC makes more money per school that they would as a separate conference while the Big 12 will make less but they can survive and thrive. Each team could play 3 occ games, 6 divisional, and 3 inter divisional including 1 permanent opponent. For example, Oregon and Baylor would play annually. The bottom line is that ESPN is calling the shots which hurts the PAC 12 as from what I gather FOX apparently is not interested in their conference since UCLA and USC are gone.

This is not an A.D. decision, but one made by a schools Board and President. " Southsideguy" hit the nail on the head. They are in until they are not. Last year the Big 12 asked the PAC 12 after losing Texas and OU if they could merge with them. Their new commissioner said thanks but no thanks. Now the Big 12 has reloaded, the PAC has lost their "big 2", and have nowhere to go. Just a guess and by golly but I see the PAC remainders circling the wagons and adding two programs. SDSU and SMU names pop up as does Houston and Boise as contenders. Rumor has it that the Big 12 wants to get to 16 programs. If they can't pry anyone lose from the PAC, then Boise, Colorado State,Memphis, and South Florida come to mind but would need ESPN to sign off . The main problem is that when the PAC and Big 12 start looking at programs that don't include their respective conferences none bring enough eyeballs to warrant enough tv money for inclusion as existing members of both conferences don't want to equally share a smaller pie. I don't see how any of these realignment effect North Texas unless SMU ends up in the PAC which eliminates a neighborhood conference rival.

Well, today I read that the PAC was staying together and two programs under their consideration for expansion were SDSU to shore up the southern California market and SMU to break into Texas. They may also make a run at Houston, who applied for admittance before being accepted by the BIG 12. Of course that all could change tomorrow. The PAC want to slow expansion down while the BIG 12 is operating at warp speed. The consensus is the the BIG 12 needs to expand now to perhaps 16 programs and that ESPN is looking at eyeballs on tv's vs size of market. For example, Boise is a very small market but has a lot of eyeballs on them when they play as opposed to Rice who is in a very large market but who cares. I would think the BIG 12 wants travel partners for both BYU and UCF. Boise seems to fit the bill for the Cougars and perhaps Memphis for the Knights although I personally think South Florida is the sleeping giant that North Texas claims to be. To keep up to date GOOGLE both "BIG 12 EXPANSION" and "PAC12 EXPANSION" which will leave you confused as everyone else.

Unfortunately I must agree. Regarding the PAC 12, all I know is what I read, which is[a] If Notre Dame joins THE BIG, then Stanford will get an invitation because of their close relationship with the IRISH. [b] If ND says no, and they would owe the ACC a ton of money if the say yes, then Oregon and Washington may get a invited but not as a full share partner as their franchises are worth far less than $100 million each per year which is THE BIG's new benchmark. [c] If Oregon and Washington are not included in THE BIG's expansion then they can either move to BIG 12 or stay and rebuild the PAC. [d] If the PAC reloads they will include programs in major markets regardless of location and presence conference affiliation. Their keys to their survival are Oregon and Washington, who will jump to THE BIG given half a chance,

Agreed! Also, USF to the BIG 12 over Memphis or Boise seems like a no brainer. However the Big !2 have bigger fish to fry. Colorado seems to have expressed little interest in going back but Colorado State could make a good substitute. I am just amazed that Stanford and Cal may be left behind. PAC only survives if Oregon and Washington take a blood oath not to leave for BIG 10 if offered.

Moving on to the present...........

Yet when the AAC expanded it was media market driven. Dallas, Houston, San Antonio,Birmingham, South Florida, Charlotte. Perhaps UTSA and UAB can turn on a few tv's, but I doubt Rice or some of the other 3 programs can.