North Texas & Memphis One and One?

[UNTLifer]

On ‎4‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 1:06 PM, UNT90 said:

It's a below average thing from a terrible AD. You only view it as good because of all the terrible crap you have had to put up with in the scheduling department, and really everywhere and everything else involving major athletics at UNT over the last 2 years. 

Congrats on being brainwashed to expect less.

You give credit for a very average scheduling get. Let's be clear.

UNT90, still make making friends and spreading influence at ever opportunity.  The tone of the above post is why so many grow tired of your contributions on here.

[UNT90]

57 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

UNT90, still make making friends and spreading influence at ever opportunity.  The tone of the above post is why so many grow tired of your contributions on here.

Do you think I care? I don't like the tone of acceptance that resonates from this board. No wonder UNT has a crap program. You get what you ask for.

[UNT90]

7 hours ago, Harry said:

Yes you are correct.  But let us not  diminish this series based on the sins of the past.

Sins of the future. Again, the schedule is becoming more and more game locked and the person that ruined it in the past is the same person locking it up long after he will be gone in the future, at least we all hope.

[UTSA Fan]

55 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Sins of the future. Again, the schedule is becoming more and more game locked and the person that ruined it in the past is the same person locking it up long after he will be gone in the future, at least we all hope.

My hope is winning cures a lot of ills. If the team rolls, I dont think people care too much about who it is. Wouldn't you agree? To that end, if RV is who he appears, you could still trump his influence with success?

Edited April 6, 2016 by UTSA Fan

[UNT90]

Just now, UTSA Fan said:

My hope is winning cures a lot of ills. If the team rolls, I dont think people care too much about who it is. Wouldn't you agree?

I think the past severely disagrees with you. I think 15k fans would be happy, but beating Memphis or SMU or Army gets you no new fans. Especially when getting blown out every year, or twice some years, in the RV Whore Bowl.

I think conference mates are doing better, and many doing so with far less resources. But, hey, RV didn't schedule a game that didn't hit the normal level of suck, so people are fine with it.

No wonder UNT is the worst FBS football program in Texas over the last 10 years. 

[UNTLifer]

15 hours ago, UNT90 said:

Sins of the future. Again, the schedule is becoming more and more game locked and the person that ruined it in the past is the same person locking it up long after he will be gone in the future, at least we all hope.

What do you suggest, AD UNT90, considering every other university is scheduling games in the 2020's?

I have been more than clear on my feelings that it is time for RV to move along, but criticizing him for scheduling a 1 and 1 with a recognizable "mid-major" is ridiculous.  Calling people that like this series "brainwashed" does nothing but solidify the majority's opinion that you would complain about a 1 and 1 with anyone.

 

[MeanGreenTexan]

1 minute ago, UNTLifer said:

What do you suggest, AD UNT90, considering every other university is scheduling games in the 2020's?

I have been more than clear on my feelings that it is time for RV to move along, but criticizing him for scheduling a 1 and 1 with a recognizable "mid-major" is ridiculous.  Calling people that like this series "brainwashed" does nothing but solidify the majority's opinion that you would complain about a 1 and 1 with anyone.

 

Do you all remember when Memphis was 3-9 in 2013?   Me neither.   Would anyone have lauded this home-home in 2013?

These games look great now because of how great Memphis was playing under Fuente... who is now gone.   Who's to say this game won't be 2 3-9 teams battling it out 8 years from now?   Who's to say these games will be frowned upon by the playoff committee when NT is 12-0 and trying to get one of those 4 spots?

[oldguystudent]

5 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

 when NT is 12-0 and trying to get one of those 4 spots?

I would like to know the name of your dealer, dude.

 

On the scheduling thing, I'm fine with anybody so long as we play out this FCS thing and never imbibe in the well again.  Most of the time it's nothing more than a stupid scrimmage, except when it's not.  Then it's a national embarrassment.  

I'm not much for us bringing in Tech or Baylor or Texas or anybody like that.  I've already seen us lose 66-7 enough times at home.  No reason to test if our scoreboards can handle three digits.

[UNTLifer]

UNT90, who would you pattern your scheduling after?

TCU?  They have a series with SMU (rivalry), and home games against South Dakota State (lesser team) and Arkansas (one on their level).

SMU?  Series with us, series with TCU (rivalry), game with Liberty (perceived lesser team) and a home game with Baylor (old conference foe).

Southern Miss?  @ Kentucky (SEC), Savannah State (lesser), Troy (lesser), at LSU ($$$).  Considered one of the top CUSA program, typical G5 schedule

Marshall?  Open with a bye, Morgan State (lesser), Akron (MAC equal foe), Louisville (good get), @Pitt ($$).  Top CUSA program, open with bye, Louisville is good, but 12 games and no break.

WKU?  @ Alabama ($$$), @ Miami, OH, Vanderbilt (lower SEC, good get) and Houston Baptist (lesser team)

 

I would love to schedule a P5 to a 1 and 1, and I think this is the glaring weakness in our scheduling, but most of the P5's that recruit our state/area are already playing TCU or would rather play SMU.  I think if we start winning, they will be more apt to come.

10 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Do you all remember when Memphis was 3-9 in 2013?   Me neither.   Would anyone have lauded this home-home in 2013?

These games look great now because of how great Memphis was playing under Fuente... who is now gone.   Who's to say this game won't be 2 3-9 teams battling it out 8 years from now?   Who's to say these games will be frowned upon by the playoff committee when NT is 12-0 and trying to get one of those 4 spots?

Oh, I agree, but when you have to schedule 6 to 7 years out, this is the chance you take, so you take a name university people will recognize.

[GreenTexan13]

16 hours ago, UNT90 said:

Do you think I care? I don't like the tone of acceptance that resonates from this board. No wonder UNT has a crap program. You get what you ask for.

We don't get what we ask for... Actually most of the time, we get the opposite.. But we don't sit on the forums and berate people for still supporting this program. You keep saying that you only support this program because RV owes you like $7000 or something like that. And to me, that is just a lame excuse... You'll still be around, whether UNT has a sunny day or a rainy day. Just ask yourself what you are trying to achieve by constantly putting down this program and telling people that they are just sheep to RV...

[UNT90]

50 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Do you all remember when Memphis was 3-9 in 2013?   Me neither.   Would anyone have lauded this home-home in 2013?

These games look great now because of how great Memphis was playing under Fuente... who is now gone.   Who's to say this game won't be 2 3-9 teams battling it out 8 years from now?   Who's to say these games will be frowned upon by the playoff committee when NT is 12-0 and trying to get one of those 4 spots?

This. And they have no regional following, will create no interest with UNT alumni, and will bring zero fans to Apogee.

This is like scheduling LaLa.

But people who haven't taken the time to follow scheduling and don't get that every game Rick Villarreal schedules is one the next, much more competent (hopefully) AD won't, and that this will severely limit the next AD's flexibility in trying to get a P5 to Apogee will see this as a "good get." Looking squarely at Lifer and those like him. 

Accepting less than mediocre is what UNT fans and supporters do, and have done for decades.

[untjim1995]

SO, a few things to add on this:

1.) Most importantly, it all doesn't matter, since RV is the AD making the schedule and he will continue to do so for years ahead, as in at least a decade or more.

2.) The general view of scheduling is that G5s have scheduled P5s at home, but the reality is that these games could go away in a blink when the P5s separate from the bottom conferences of the G5, of which the MAC, SBC, and CUSA currently sit in.

3.) No series with an OOC opponent should ever be more than 4 years long at this level. If you want to renew the series, fine. But series that are scheduled for longer than that is lazy--and especially if the one "rival" you have scheduled has the money and ability to buyout at any time they choose. That SMU series will never make it beyond 2018 if SMU turns things around or if we keep beating them. Playing Army for a series of 4 games or less is fine. Playing them 8 times, when they are no better than anyone at the lower level of the G5 is ridiculous.

4.) Schedule Texas State--they immediately should be your contingent for the SMU series going away. Do this by cancelling every FCS opponent scheduled from 2018 and on. If SMU stays, you get a few seasons with 5 home games and a game 45 minutes away with very easy tickets to purchase. If they go away, you gain another Texas school 3.5 hours down the road to play, along with your CUSA West opponents, so even in a 5 game home season, you have another opponent that is easier to get to.

5.) When you have only 5 home games, make sure the OOC game is a good one--as in higher teams in the MWC or AAC, as well as BYU. Most people would rather see a game at Apogee featuring Boise State or the AFA, instead of us playing two home games featuring SMU or Army and a FCS team.

I am not even asking for us to schedule P5s, even though we were sold that idea when Apogee was being voted on and after it passed. Just schedule someone that people want to see in Texas--other Texas schools that aren't FCS and playing teams like Army, BYU, MWC, or AAC teams would at least give you a chance to get some new fans to come watch. The FCS games qames are losers all the way around--you are paying for them to come here even though very few new fans are willing to come watch them play, they give you no idea what you have on your team compared to our other scheduled teams, and if you lose, the embarrassment is pretty stout.

[UNT90]

5 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

What do you suggest, AD UNT90, considering every other university is scheduling games in the 2020's?

I have been more than clear on my feelings that it is time for RV to move along, but criticizing him for scheduling a 1 and 1 with a recognizable "mid-major" is ridiculous.  Calling people that like this series "brainwashed" does nothing but solidify the majority's opinion that you would complain about a 1 and 1 with anyone.

 

The joke is EVERY ONE of our conference peers are scheduling better, yet you want to congratulate Rick Villarreal for doing something that isn't an accomplishment anywhere but UNT.

This mindset, from fans to athletic department to university leadership, is why UNT is the joke of college athletics. 

You are brainwashed to accept average as an accomplishment. To accept any little scrap thrown your way, even though EVERY other conference foe is doing better as some scheduling accomplishment proves just how brain washed you have become.

Edited April 7, 2016 by UNT90

[Cerebus]

18 hours ago, UNT90 said:

I think the past severely disagrees with you. I think 15k fans would be happy, but beating Memphis or SMU or Army gets you no new fans. Especially when getting blown out every year, or twice some years, in the RV Whore Bowl.

I think conference mates are doing better, and many doing so with far less resources. But, hey, RV didn't schedule a game that didn't hit the normal level of suck, so people are fine with it.

No wonder UNT is the worst FBS football program in Texas over the last 10 years. 

[UNT90]

6 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

Understandable.

Just remember, education is all about repetition, at least with many. 

And the need for such repitition is proven on here daily.  

Edited April 7, 2016 by UNT90

[Censored by Laurie]

36 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Understandable.

Just remember, education is all about repetition, at least with many. 

And that is proven on here daily.  

so...you're an educator now? 

[UNT90]

Just now, Censored by Laurie said:

so...you're an educator now? 

Droppin' knowledge since 2008, bitches!!!

[NTXCoog]

As an outsider, what surprises me is that UNT can't get a 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 with a P5 team.  When UH was still having major attendance issues in the early 2000s, we had buy games like UNT at Michigan, OU, and Bama, but we were also able to get 2 or 3 for 1 games against mid-level BCS teams like Okie State, UCLA, and Miss State.  Robertson Stadium was only about 1.5k seats larger but Apogee has more premium seating so I don't think size is the issue.

I know college football has changed quite a bit in the last 10 years, but it does seem that other schools in UNT's situation can get that 2/3-for-1.  I wonder if UNT just can't get the money to work to their liking or want the immediate guarantee while other schools may be willing to take a potential loss to try to build a future fan base/reputation.

[UNTFan23]

7 minutes ago, NTXCoog said:

As an outsider, what surprises me is that UNT can't get a 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 with a P5 team.  When UH was still having major attendance issues in the early 2000s, we had buy games like UNT at Michigan, OU, and Bama, but we were also able to get 2 or 3 for 1 games against mid-level BCS teams like Okie State, UCLA, and Miss State.  Robertson Stadium was only about 1.5k seats larger but Apogee has more premium seating so I don't think size is the issue.

I know college football has changed quite a bit in the last 10 years, but it does seem that other schools in UNT's situation can get that 2/3-for-1.  I wonder if UNT just can't get the money to work to their liking or want the immediate guarantee while other schools may be willing to take a potential loss to try to build a future fan base/reputation.

Current Athletic Director is against 2 for or 3 for 1 deals.  It really limits your scheduling options.

[untjim1995]

24 minutes ago, NTXCoog said:

As an outsider, what surprises me is that UNT can't get a 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 with a P5 team.  When UH was still having major attendance issues in the early 2000s, we had buy games like UNT at Michigan, OU, and Bama, but we were also able to get 2 or 3 for 1 games against mid-level BCS teams like Okie State, UCLA, and Miss State.  Robertson Stadium was only about 1.5k seats larger but Apogee has more premium seating so I don't think size is the issue.

I know college football has changed quite a bit in the last 10 years, but it does seem that other schools in UNT's situation can get that 2/3-for-1.  I wonder if UNT just can't get the money to work to their liking or want the immediate guarantee while other schools may be willing to take a potential loss to try to build a future fan base/reputation.

Well, Houston is a great recruiting market to play a game in, plus UH has about 100x more national name recognition than we have, just because of their SWC history. Denton and UNT don't have any of those advantages, plus a game at SMU or TCU gives you more name recognition for your fans than we do.

And, above all that, we have a moron for an AD that has 17 people that keep him in his position, no matter what. It should be apples to apples, but unfortunately for us, its not even apples to oranges, its more like apples to cow patties.

[Army of Dad]

38 minutes ago, UNTFan23 said:

Current Athletic Director is against 2 for or 3 for 1 deals.  It really limits your scheduling options.

Yeah, so much better to do 2 for 0 deals...

[UNT90]

1 hour ago, NTXCoog said:

As an outsider, what surprises me is that UNT can't get a 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 with a P5 team.  When UH was still having major attendance issues in the early 2000s, we had buy games like UNT at Michigan, OU, and Bama, but we were also able to get 2 or 3 for 1 games against mid-level BCS teams like Okie State, UCLA, and Miss State.  Robertson Stadium was only about 1.5k seats larger but Apogee has more premium seating so I don't think size is the issue.

I know college football has changed quite a bit in the last 10 years, but it does seem that other schools in UNT's situation can get that 2/3-for-1.  I wonder if UNT just can't get the money to work to their liking or want the immediate guarantee while other schools may be willing to take a potential loss to try to build a future fan base/reputation.

Make no mistake, we have the worst AD in the nation when it comes to scheduling football games and negotiating with other schools for UNT home games.

And that includes FCS programs. 

[NTXCoog]

45 minutes ago, UNTFan23 said:

Current Athletic Director is against 2 for or 3 for 1 deals.  It really limits your scheduling options.

UH currently is against that too, but there's a time and place for different strategies.

• 1 and done buy games - When the program desperately needs cash
• 2/3 for 1 deals - when you're trying to build a fanbase and reputation when you don't have high enough home attendance to get a 1 for 1
• only home and homes (against G5) - when attendance is high enough that you don't need money games to keep the program afloat
• G5 home and homes and a FCS home game - when attendance is high enough that you make more on home games than road games, and you want that 6th or 7th home game that's cheap
• P5 home and homes, maybe 2-for-1 with lower level G5s - most, if not all, games are sold out.  season tickets are near or at maxed out.  Donations and season ticket prices up to maximize revenues.  This is the ultimate goal for all G5 teams.

This is a progression, but programs can use combinations of these strategies or bounce back and forth between them.  It's foolish to think a program at that buy game level can think they can skip straight to the end.

[MeanGreenTexan]

30 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

Yeah, so much better to do 2 for 0 deals...

"2 for 0 deals" = 2 paychecks.

"2 for 1 deals" = 0 paychecks, only the gate of the 1 home game.

We don't have the money to accomplish a 2 for 1 deal without having at least 1 (if not 2) 5-home-game schedules to balance the budget.

So, yes.  The "2 for 0 deals" are much better.

[UNTLifer]

2 hours ago, UNT90 said:

The joke is EVERY ONE of our conference peers are scheduling better, yet you want to congratulate Rick Villarreal for doing something that isn't an accomplishment anywhere but UNT.

This mindset, from fans to athletic department to university leadership, is why UNT is the joke of college athletics. 

You are brainwashed to accept average as an accomplishment. To accept any little scrap thrown your way, even though EVERY other conference foe is doing better as some scheduling accomplishment proves just how brain washed you have become.

Again, you spout what has become your go to lines yet make zero suggestions.  Still waiting on you to provide me with what you suggest we do at this point considering all other teams are scheduling 8 years out.