stebo

What a contrast to the Dickey ramblings when the writing was on the wall. Dodge is taking full responsibility, completely accepting that the job is (in the end) about winning football games, and NOT bad mouthing the school or the AD. I remember reading crap in the paper every week before and after the DD firing about what a miserable job the NT coaching gig was, how the admin was impossible to work for, how it was the "toughest football coaching job in the entire country" and so on and so on. Hell, I am sick of losing but I would really love to just reassign Dodge for his final year. We will have to pay him anyway. Reassign him to some QB coach or even something in the AD office - or maybe raising funds for the stadium - or put him on the radio. People have joked and called Dodge the Vic Trilli of football. You know, that is actually a pretty good comparison - and should be taken as a compliment. Tik Vanilla went on to be an Athletic Director at another college and is doing just fine. Dodge really knows how to say the right things.

Yep, I could use 2 if you got them. Emily and I have our seats but my dad and brother would like to come up for the game. Can you hook a brotha up?

Does anyone have a couple of extra tickets that you are not going to use for the home game against FIU? Suddenly my brother and dad want to come with Emily and I to the game, lol. I would appreciate the extras if they are not going to be used. I might just need one ticket because my brother has not committed yet - so one or two would be helpful. Thanks folks. Steve Boedeker stebo1@gmail.com

FIU looks REALLY improved. They have the highest paid coaching staff in the Sun Belt and it looks like it is starting to pay off. 21-21 against the Terps, at Maryland. Last week FIU was beating aTm at College Stattion until late in the 4th quarter and they just collapsed. Same thing happened the week before. Maybe they can finish this week. If not, they are very close to turning their ship around.

No offense, but The "Runners" have yet to play a down of football. If their basketball attendance is any indication of the fan support they will get, the whole gamble will be a disaster. San Antonio has not embraced the basketball program, why would they embrace the football team? Just curious as to how UTSA will get over the same stigma that has haunted it for year. We have a team that is moving directly to FBS in the Belt. South Alabama... They are doing it the right way, first year was 2009 and was against prep schools and a few non-scholly colleges. This year they are playing FCS teams and so far they are undefeated. They are averaging 23K a game and have a perfect record of 9-0 over two season. Next year will be transition year 1, the next year will be transition year #2, and they will be FBS by 2013. How will the Runners be able to play by 2014 (that is the year that I keep seeing) when they have yet to take a snap in any game? Is rushing into FBS something that you really want to do? One thing that I have learned over the years is that no tradition is sometimes better than bad tradition. I envy schools like USF and even USA that launch their programs and see immediate success in the stands and on the field. But those schools really had a good plan in place. I just don't think that UTSA is going about this the right way.. they seem to have a goal to play FBS football at all costs, and they could destroy their future fan base in the process. If UTSA starts laying an egg right off the bat, they will lose the city immediately. The UTSA students have shown that they will not support UTSA sports already so those locals are instrumental for success. I really wish that Coker would tap the breaks and do this right - for the sake of the fans and the future of the program. You guys are gonna get destroyed out there and lose the momentum that you have worked so hard to build up. Playing in the new WAC will be a lot like NT playing back in the Big West. There are no members left that can build a program to the level of a Fresno, a Nevada, or a Boise. MAYBE Hawaii can - but they have limitations due to geography. North Texas knows Idaho U very well, they play in an airplane hangar in Moscow and it seats 18K. There will never be big time football there. Next up you have USU - they also suffer from years of apathy and a terrible location. It is very difficult to get there, trust me - I have gone! Next up, NMSU - they are a nice program but they will never be big time and they know it. They could not win in the Belt and the "advantage" of the WAC has actually hurt them. Their attendance has gone down and they have gone through a few coaches. La Tech will bolt at the first chance, they would even take a MAC invite over the new WAC. San Jose is pathetic. Hawaii is Hawaii. Then you have you guys and TSU@SM. Texas State had 12K people last week for their home game against Cal Poly. I think that they could expect similar attendance against Idaho, SJSU, NMSU, USU, and the likes. There is just not a lot of value there and you are trying to make it work because you guys want to be FBS so damn bad. I am sure that you think that this is your only shot so it is time to take advantage of that - but you might destroy your program's future in the process. Being in the Big West nearly bankrupt North Texas and we were VERY close to dropping football completely before the Belt saved us. The Belt is not the best - we all recognize that. Heck, the Belt is pretty damn crappy. Bu I guarantee you this - the Belt will be more respected than the future WAC. I would bet any amount of money on it. The schools that will make up the WAC all have serious baggage and do not have the potential that Fresno, Boise, and Nevada did (which is why those three have left). I would think really hard before you wish for a WAC invite - it could cripple your program forever.

Could not agree more. Mean Green on the helmets would be a nice change.

I actually agree with a lot of what you are all presenting but when we spent all the money on branding, we became a slave to that official branding. That means the color and name/font. I think that the SOW looks great on the uniform in the spots that were mentioned, but I don't see it going on the helmet simply because we are trying to be consistent and build up the Mean Green team name. And its not a nickname, its the official team name as of the year 2000. Putting an eagle on the helmet would make it tough to market the team as the Mean Green. People might start to think we had changed back to Eagles. FB explained this to me very clearly, our team name is The Mean Green and Scrappy the Eagle is our mascot. That is what I was told and I am not trying to influence anyone, just explain the rationale behind the Athletic Departmen's decision to focus on the official name. I wish that we had more flexibility as a department but we are held to the branding. We can put any of that branding on the uniform but we cAnnot use anything that is new or thought up. The branding was put in place to have consistency over the next hundred years (so I have had to force myself to get used to the green, lol)

You do realize that there is no way the school is going "back" to Eagles. There are something like 57 other colleges (all at different levels of play) using the eagle as a team name/mascot. Mean Green is unique to North Texas and was officially changed to the team name 10 years ago. That is not going to ever change - which means that we will not be putting any eagles on any helmets because that is out mascot, not our team name. Alabama doesn't have an elephant on their helmet... Tulane doesn't have a pelican on their's. Mean Green will not have an eagle on our uniforms unless RV has just been misquoted in every article that I have ever read. Basically, we have spent ten years building up the new name of Mean Green from eagles, I doubt that he will want to try and go back to the old one now. Just my opinion. I also think that everyone needs to look at all of the branding that NT did - that is what we are limited to. We can't use another color and we can't just put whatever we want on the helmets. If we could, we would still have the script. We are stuck with what the branding committee came up with behind closed doors. Personally, I have grown fond of the new green in some ways but I really miss the older, darker green. To me it was much "meaner"...

I disagree. We have lost 5 starters and another 5 on the 2 deep. Still very tough as we lost both the starter and the back-up in two positions - but not the same as losing 10 starters (in my opinion).

I believe that they were referring to USU losing 5 starters. BTW - have we really lost 10 starters or have some of those players been back-ups filling in for the starters?

It is just an observation. I really could care less about Dodge and Co. You won't see a "Fire Dodge" thread from me. I was commenting on the fan base. Our fan base as compared to their's.

So I am watching their game - it came on CBS-C after the Army/NT game. It is empty in there. Can't be more than 8K people in there. How is that possible? They spend $2 million a year on a coach, they win 9 games (including a bowl game), and they launch a sell out the stadium campaign - and on top of all this they have a Pac 10 school in town for a home game - and STILL, they can't get a crowd. Is this why the SW conference broke up? It's sad really - we are 5-34 over the last 4 years and we have good crowds. If you are an SMU fan, you must be confused. If you are one of those boosters, you must feel dissapointed with the return on your emotional investment. Turn the game on if you have that channel, tell me how many fans you see. It looks like 8k-10K to me (and that is being pretty generous)

Huh? We don't "bus" to any games. The closest conference game is in Monroe and we even fly there. Methinks this story has a little tailgate leftover beer in it.

I don't believe that you are correct. Here is the exact wording - and all of this is contingent upon BYU joining the WAC for all sports except football by Sept 1. BYU did not join the WAC, they joined the WCC. BYU did enter into a scheduling agreement with the WAC for football games (much like the MOU that the Belt has with the MAC). But the terms of this resolution are very clear - it is void if BYU did not join the WAC. Just because two schools chose to accept invites to another conference, doesn't change the resolution at all. If BYU had accepted the offer to join the WAC for all sports except football before Sept 1st, those schools would be on the hook. Actually - Fresno would be on the hook for the $5 million. They accepted first, which voided the agreement for Nevada to accept without penalty - but neither penalty applies because the Cougars joined the WCC. This lawsuit is specifically about the 2012 season - and they will settle. Just watch. In case you would like to read the exact resolution and have any questions, I have pasted it below (Public Record). Western Athletic Conference (WAC) Corporate Resolution Whereas, the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) is a corporate entity formed for the purposes of establishing and organizing athletic competitions among its members which include the following universities: Boise State, Fresno State, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana Tech, Nevada, New Mexico State, San Jose State, and Utah State; and, Whereas, Boise State has given notice of its withdrawal from the conference in accordance with Article II, Section 7 of the bylaws and consequently has forfeited its right to be present at meetings of the Board of Directors when matters relating to prospective new member institutions, or to institutions that have accepted invitations to join the conference, are being discussed pursuant to Article III, Section 5; and,Whereas, the members of the WAC wish to enter into an agreement with Brigham Young University (BYU); and, Whereas, BYU and the WAC have been pursuing negotiations for the specific terms and conditions under which BYU will enter into a contract with the WAC; and,Whereas, in order for BYU to proceed with termination of its current affiliation with the Mountain West Conference it needs certain minimum assurances from the WAC; and, Whereas, the WAC wishes to take steps to make such minimum assurances to BYU so that a contract with BYU may be completed: It is therefore resolved as follows: 1. The current bylaws and rules and regulations of the WAC shall remain in full force and effect. To the extent this resolution is in conflict with the current bylaws and/or rules and regulations, this resolution will prevail. 2. The members of the WAC who have attended this telephonic conference conducted at 11 a.m. mountain standard time August 13, 2010 hereby waive notice of the meeting and acknowledge that the actions taken at this meeting are fully binding and effective on all members of the WAC. 3. The terms of this resolution shall become effective immediately. It is understood that the agreement regarding athletic seasons contemplated with BYU will extend through the time frame July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2016 or as extended, or if terminated in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 herein. 4. The WAC and its members and BYU, agree that all current members of the WAC (except Louisiana Tech and Boise State, which has already given notice of its withdrawal) will not join any other conference or athletic conference from the date of adoption of this resolution through June 30, 2016, contingent upon BYU agreeing that it will not join any other conference or athletic conference from the date of entering a contract with the WAC through June 30, 2016. 5. Any WAC member (except Louisiana Tech or Boise State) or BYU shall pay a penalty of $5 million in the event it violates the terms of paragraph 4 herein unless the conference that is joined has current (as of the time joined) automatic access for its league champion into the bowl championship series (BCS). Said payment will be made within 60 days from demand from the WAC. 6. In the event that any current WAC member, (except Louisiana Tech or Boise State), or BYU leaves the WAC in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 herein, the terms of this resolution are terminated. 7. To the extent that adoption of this resolution constitutes an amendment of the bylaws, this board approves such amendment(s) and the required vote of 3/4 has been met in order to make this resolution and any such amendments enforceable. 8. Karl Benson, the Commissioner and President of the WAC, is hereby authorized to proceed with continued negotiations regarding the specific terms of the contract with BYU for consideration by this Board. 9. In the event that no written agreement is executed by BYU on or before September 1, 2010, which agreement will include the obligations contained in paragraphs 3-6 of this Resolution and any additional provisions agreed to by this Board, then this Resolution is terminated. 10. A roll call has been conducted and__________ out of eight authorized voters have approved this resolution and therefore: This resolution is adopted this 13th day of August 2010.

But that was not the agreement. The agreement was that the schools would stay together for 5 years IF (and the key word is IF) ... IF the Wac added BYU by Sept 1 as a member for all sports sans football. If BYU had joined, they would owe the money. BYU did not join, so they are off the hook. What the WAC is trying to do with this lawsuit is hold onto the teams until 2012. This has nothing to do with the other MOU. And that is key. Why does the Wac want them to stick around until 2012? Well, they don't. But they want compensation for them leaving. And that is what this lawsuit it about. A settlement. They can then take that money and spread it around to try and hold onto the remaining members. But if one more leaves, they are no longer a conference in the eyes of the NCAA. That means no auto bid to ANY championship event. No bid to the Big Dance. Nothing, nada, zilch. And then it becomes impossible to lure some crappy start up like UTSA to take their place because even a desperate school would rather be safe than sorry. The Wac is dead. They will not recover from this. Montana is their only hope and they aren't saying a word. This is nearly an identical situation to the Big West when NT joined. All the quality had left and they were scrambling around picking up IA wannabes to stay alive. Ugly picture. Makes the Belt look like a secure conference. Thank God we didn't join that sinking ship (and I was one of the ones wanting to join!)

I finally got around to paying for my season tickets today and spoke to the ticket guy... he said that it has been really busy today, they sold about 500 tickets (phone orders) to the Rice game just this morning (I spoke to him around noon)... That doesn't account for the tickets that were ordered online through the ticketmaster site. My parents might want to come so I checked on individual tickets - there are still reserved seats available for Rice - but only in Section I and some scattered tickets in A and B... The end zones have plenty available - there were 2nd row available all through the end zones. We had better get some serious walk up sales or this game will not be even close to what we are used to for regional opponents. All that being said - I expect us to have a ton of walk up ticket sales (like always)... Oh, and Harry - I think that the ticket exchange would be really great. I know that I am going to miss a game due to ACL tickets in Austin - but I would love to trade those for some KSU tickets (for someone that will be out of town Thanksgiving weekend)... .just my $.02

Are those throwback unis? Or did they change to those?

Or how about grammar?

Can't argue with that, we had a very special defense during the Hall/Smith years.

Scott brought that intangible leadership to the field. I have watched Riley attempt to claim/grab that leadership position - it just did not seem humble enough - maybe he will get there. Vizza might have been that guy but his heart was somewhere else. Any kid that changes commitments so late in the game isn't really committed to playing the game (in general) - at least most of the time. Meager just didn't have it in him to be a leader - he had the talent, but not that leadership piece. I will even say that Drew, God rest his soul, was a very good QB - but was a silent leader. He let his actions take the place of his words. It is very rare that you have a leader that can perform - I thought that Riley would be the guy. I am hoping that he gets there.. despite the position he is playing.

Karma is a bitch. USU screwed over the Belt a few years back... hehe... That is some funny stuff.

Umm, how are we in a wait and see mode? We just hired a consultant that was a founding father of CUSA. We have built our stadium. We are doing EVERYTHING to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

Lol, ok good points - I am just trying to see this as a positive thing. In the past we would have been left off these lists (but maybe being left off is better than being at the bottom) - I tried to justify it though!!

These rankings are probably the only rankings that I care about - as these are the STUDENT's results/opinions. Nothing has been bought with these rankings - these are the reality. Here is a two page article on the reason for establishing the rankings. Take 5 minutes and read it. We ARE doing a good job at NT, even if you do not like being ranked behind some of those smaller schools. Heck, UT was ranked behind other Texas schools. But these are the realities of the results. How many students are working in the profession of their degree? Please read the opener to these rankings here: http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2010/0830/best-colleges-10-new-york-university-liberal-arts-higher-ed.html?partner=yahoomag Also - keep in mind that any school with liberal art degrees will be lower on this list, period. How many music major REALLY go on to work in music? Not many. You can say the same thing about art, all of those Applied Arts Degrees, and even my degree - English. I do not work in the field that I graduated in - so my results would hurt our ranking. But that is where I disagree with the article, college is not 100% about what you learn in the classroom related to your career. If that was the case, we would all go to trade schools. College is about exploring new things, learning about multiple subjects, and most importantly - setting a goal and seeing it through to the end. In my position, I hire people every week. We require a Bachelors or higher but we do not specify what type of Bachelors. When I am looking through resumes, I will first look to see if they have a degree - then I will look to see if they worked while in school (that is a plus in my mind) - then I look to see how long it took for them to graduate... I don't even look at the major, I honestly don't. I might glance at it to talk with the potential employee about their major - but I am more interested in asking them about their work experience. If they have none, I want to know what they did while they were in college (pre-professional work experience). So hiring mamngers are more concerned about finding the right person rather than the right degree. Just a little perspective from my position - I am sure that we have other hiring managers on this board and since these rankings have a lot to do with jobs acquired post college - maybe you can share what you look for in a degree/major. Again - please read the article that establishes the reasoning for the rankings. I like that there is no fancy donation that can be made to make it on this list... lobbying for a new tier will not do you any good with thee rankings. These are just the facts and as long as we have a large amount of liberal art graduates, we will probably have these job acquisition rates. Perhaps we can launch a program like SMU's that places people into a job after graduation. So that would be SMU, Devry, and I think the Fashion Institute offers job placement (as long as you don't mind working the register at the Gap!).... http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2010/0830/best-colleges-10-new-york-university-liberal-arts-higher-ed.html?partner=yahoomag

I know it seems bad - but that grad rate is based off of students that start college with zero credits and finish in 4 years. If a student brings in even one class from another school, they are not counted. NT seems to get a lot of "kids coming home" - when they go off to some school, get homesick (or have bad grades) and come back to finish/start fresh at UNT. I work in Higher Ed and we like to look at the "completion" rate - which is the number of students that finish their degree after starting with the program (despite the transferred in credits). UNT is a victim of a great price - there is not as much "urgency" for students to finish in 4 years because they can drag it out and have fun. NT also has a lot of students that work while going to school. I was just happy to se us on the list, you know? There are thousands of colleges in this country - to be in the top 650 is a good thing.