What's the Deal with BYU?

[untgirl04]

UNTGirl04--

In order of importance.....what is more important? "W" or "$"??

IMHO, "$" will follow "W" don't you agree??

←

Good question. I think in the short term, money is more important, but in the long term, winning is much more important. The question is whether or not we can acheive the short term without sacrificing the long term.

Unfortunately, I don't see it as a simple, cut and dried issue. I think the money will follow the wins, only if they are quality wins. If we beat up on a bunch of D1-AA programs, I don't really see how that will bring better D1-A opponents to Fouts. And I unfortunately don't think winning is bringing in the big donors - just look at our past 5 years for proof. Yes, we did raise a bit of money, but I think that most affluent alumni want us beating the Texases and Oklahomas of the world before they'll donate. I don't agree with this philosophy, but I think that's where we're at right now.

I think we'll bring better recruits to North Texas by being that sleeper giant that can at any time knock of a good team. Or by winning our bowl games and playing at different bowl venues. In a perfect world, money follows winning, but I think right now at North Texas, we can't wait for the wins - we just need the money.

[H-towngreen]

I'm for bringing in a I-AA team. Lets have SFA, or Sam come in here. It's another win and an improvement on last year. At the end of the season which would you rather be? 7-5 or 8-4. 8-4 or 9-3

Wins matter to recruits, yeah they may look at who we played but in the end it will be the record.

[eeally]

Players want to play BYU, they do not want to play SFA. Who says we could not beat BYU. We could. If we want a big time program here we must play other big time programs even if we get beat.

[eulesseagle]

eeally-

We all would like to beat BYU but:

1. UNT has DD and RF at the helm......what do you really think the chances are?

2. UNT is "still" #207 out of 117 D-1 teams. I think BYU is quite a bit higher!!

3. What players have you spoken with want to play BYU??

4. Do you want a "WIN" or have BYU hang 30-50 on us

5. I would much rather have a win over a AA school.

[Eagle1855]

Players want to play BYU, they do not want to play SFA. Who says we could not beat BYU. We could. If we want a big time program here we must play other big time programs even if we get beat.

←

Im with you on this one. This 1AA talk is stupid. If everyone wants to play and beat up on 1AA teams, follow a 1AA school. We are div 1A. To legitimize us being a division 1A program, we need to play teams like BYU competitively. I dont see why we couldnt play with them or any other Div 1A team (that would even consider coming to fouts). Our players want to play better teams.

Think big. $$$ comes with winning. C-USA comes with winning. Fans show up to see winners- at the Div 1 level against opponents of whom they have heard. Nobody wants to watch us play SFA, Nicholls State, McNeese or any other lousy 1AA football program. I have less incentive to make a trip from Houston to see us play one of those teams. Excuse me for not being able to get excited about those prospects.

[ipEAGLE]

Im with you on this one. This 1AA talk is stupid. If everyone wants to play and beat up on 1AA teams, follow a 1AA school. We are div 1A. To legitimize us being a division 1A program, we need to play teams like BYU competitively. I dont see why we couldnt play with them or any other Div 1A team (that would even consider coming to fouts). Our players want to play better teams.

Think big. $$$ comes with winning. C-USA comes with winning. Fans show up to see winners- at the Div 1 level against opponents of whom they have heard. Nobody wants to watch us play SFA, Nicholls State, McNeese or any other lousy 1AA football program. I have less incentive to make a trip from Houston to see us play one of those teams. Excuse me for not being able to get excited about those prospects.

←

Great post!

[eulesseagle]

Eagle1855---

We can not play schools like BYU competitively right now. That is my point.

Last year Tulsa hung................ 54 on us.

Last year K-State hung..............54 on us.

Last year LaTech hung...............40 on us.

Last year LSU hung...................56 on us.

Those were not competitive games. These were embar"ass"ments.

My belief, for the short term, is that UNT needs wins not $$ or trying to be competitive. Trying to be compeititve and losing just fuels the fires of epistles. IMHO, this is a time when UNT needs to take 1 step back before taking 2 steps forward concerning who we play. If you and UNTGirl04 have the philosophy that UNT should be a "Canon Fodder" school to raise money and be competitive then I can respect your opinion. My opinion is that UNT needs wins against "anyone" because the BOTTOM LINE IS "W's"....... not being competitive to get 40-56 hung on us for loss that we did not have to take. Ok...so what if we lose by 14 AGAINST BYU....is that a moral victory or competitive loss??? This will "always" go in the statistic books as a LOSS!!!! You sound like you want to play for "L's"....I want to play for "W's" until we get better players who can play with and beat teams like BYU/TCU/TULSA/LATECH ETC......In your heart you know I am right.

[untgirl04]

Eagle1855---

We can not play schools like BYU competitively right now.  That is my point.

Last year Tulsa hung................ 54 on us.

Last year K-State hung..............54 on us.

Last year LaTech hung...............40 on us.

Last year LSU hung...................56 on us.

Those were not competitive games.  These were embar"ass"ments.

My belief, for the short term, is that UNT needs wins not $$ or trying to be competitive.  Trying to be compeititve and losing just fuels the fires of epistles.  IMHO, this is a time when UNT needs to take 1 step back before taking 2 steps forward concerning who we play.  If you and UNTGirl04 have the philosophy that UNT should be a "Canon Fodder" school to raise money and be competitive then I can respect your opinion. My opinion is that UNT needs wins against "anyone" because the BOTTOM LINE IS "W's"....... not being competitive to get 40-56 hung on us for loss that we did not have to take.  Ok...so what if we lose by 14 AGAINST BYU....is that a moral victory or competitive loss???  This will "always" go in the statistic books as a LOSS!!!!  You sound like you want to play for "L's"....I want to play for "W's" until we get better players who can play with and beat teams like BYU/TCU/TULSA/LATECH ETC......In your heart you know I am right.

←

Whoa! I never said I thought UNT should be "Cannon Fodder" for anyone. If you'll read my original post, I said that I thought we should be playing the likes of TCU and SMUt. I would hardly call SMUt a "Powerhouse" team. Basically, what you're saying in these posts is that our boys are no better than D1-AA anyway, so we should only play them and our conference-mates. If you never play bigger teams, you'll never get any better. I think we both agree on the coaching aspect of this problem, but I think that situation will be rectified, one way or another, this year. So putting coaching aside, your insinuation that we can't recruit better than D1-AA is insulting. It's insulting to the Brad Kassells, Cody Spencers, Adrian Awasoms, and soon to be Patrick Cobbs and Jamario Thomas of our teams who can compete with anyone on any given Sunday.

I understand your concern for competitiveness, and I want to see us competitive just as much as you do. But I don't think playing against teams with less talent is going to improve our talent or make us competitive.

[foutsrouts]

Eagle1855---

We can not play schools like BYU competitively right now.  That is my point.

Last year Tulsa hung................ 54 on us.

Last year K-State hung..............54 on us.

Last year LaTech hung...............40 on us.

Last year LSU hung...................56 on us.

Those were not competitive games.  These were embar"ass"ments.

My belief, for the short term, is that UNT needs wins not $$ or trying to be competitive.  Trying to be compeititve and losing just fuels the fires of epistles.  IMHO, this is a time when UNT needs to take 1 step back before taking 2 steps forward concerning who we play.  If you and UNTGirl04 have the philosophy that UNT should be a "Canon Fodder" school to raise money and be competitive then I can respect your opinion. My opinion is that UNT needs wins against "anyone" because the BOTTOM LINE IS "W's"....... not being competitive to get 40-56 hung on us for loss that we did not have to take.  Ok...so what if we lose by 14 AGAINST BYU....is that a moral victory or competitive loss???  This will "always" go in the statistic books as a LOSS!!!!  You sound like you want to play for "L's"....I want to play for "W's" until we get better players who can play with and beat teams like BYU/TCU/TULSA/LATECH ETC......In your heart you know I am right.

←

That happened because we just plain sucked last year. The previous three or four seasons we probably could have hung tough with BYU. Here's to hoping that last year was an anomaly. Bring on the Mormans!

[Eagle1855]

Eagle1855---

We can not play schools like BYU competitively right now.  That is my point.

Last year Tulsa hung................ 54 on us.

Last year K-State hung..............54 on us.

Last year LaTech hung...............40 on us.

Last year LSU hung...................56 on us.

Those were not competitive games.  These were embar"ass"ments.

My belief, for the short term, is that UNT needs wins not $$ or trying to be competitive.  Trying to be compeititve and losing just fuels the fires of epistles.  IMHO, this is a time when UNT needs to take 1 step back before taking 2 steps forward concerning who we play.  If you and UNTGirl04 have the philosophy that UNT should be a "Canon Fodder" school to raise money and be competitive then I can respect your opinion. My opinion is that UNT needs wins against "anyone" because the BOTTOM LINE IS "W's"....... not being competitive to get 40-56 hung on us for loss that we did not have to take.  Ok...so what if we lose by 14 AGAINST BYU....is that a moral victory or competitive loss???  This will "always" go in the statistic books as a LOSS!!!!  You sound like you want to play for "L's"....I want to play for "W's" until we get better players who can play with and beat teams like BYU/TCU/TULSA/LATECH ETC......In your heart you know I am right.

←

Your entire argument is moot if we lose to a Div 1AA school. You pencil in these 1AA games like they are gimmes. I bet LSU thought they would hang 80+ points on Appalachin State. Oops.

Your presumption that I want to play for "L's " is off-based if not absurd. I hate losing. What I hate even more than losing, however, is a fan base that would readily accept wins over sub-par competition (that isnt even in our division) over playing competitively against schools we should view as our equals (win or lose).

So instead of trying to find a way to get our program up to the level we need it to be (or would like it to be), you want to just bring the level of competition down to something we can manage right now. Brilliant. Im sure our recruits will go bananas when they find out they will have the opportunity to square off against Avacado U, Guacamole State, and The Sisters of the Blind and Poor. Who wouldnt?

These 1AA games dont do anything for us. You win, its a given and you are given little credit. You lose, you are an embarassment. There are 119 div 1A teams. Im sure we can find to play every year.

And what good is it to go 8-4, then lose (and by lose I mean "have our asses handed to us") to the 4th or 5th best C-USA team that barely sneaks onto the bowl scene with a 6-6 or 7-5 reord?

Edited February 27, 2006 by Eagle1855

[eulesseagle]

Guys and Girls--

All I advocate is playing a couple of D-1AA games to boost our Win record.

My position is that the only thing that counts in the final stats is the Won-Loss record.

With UNT being ranked #107 out of the D-1A schools there are plenty of D-1AA schools that are much better in the rankings.......so in reality UNT is probably ranked #130 - 145, including Appalachian and Texas State if you want to include D-1AA schools. UNT ain't even in the top 20 of D-1AA programs!!!!

How do you feel about the four 40-56 pt loses last year??

Do you think UNT will be cannon fodder in Austin in September??

What do you think about BCS schools playing D-1AA programs??? What do you think about Mid-Majors playing D-1AA programs???

UNT is looking for Wins, not moral victories by losing by "X" amount of points.

I am only advocate playing one or two games a year until our W-L record improves. It could mean a record of 7-5 instead of 5-7. What would you rather have??? Appears that you want the 5-7 record and have a couple of moral loses along the way!! If I were a recruit I would be much more impressed with a series of 7-5 records (regardless who we play) instead of a series of 5-7 losing season records.

I have watched UNT play D-1AA schools since we became D-1A. Probably too degrading for you.

Granted......I want UNT to achieve!!! I want UNT, not only be competitive, but let opponents know that we have a game plan to beat them!!!! and that every time we go on the field we know that will happen.

Sometimes you have to take a step back before taking 2 steps forward.

If you are satisfied with being #107 out of 117 D-1A teams then and maybe #140 in the nation including D-1AA teams then I can respect that.

I, too, am not going to address the coaching situation....I too believe that will be resolved by the end of September when we finish the bulk of the OOC games.

[untgirl04]

Guys and Girls--

All I advocate is playing a couple of D-1AA games to boost our Win record.

My position is that the only thing that counts in the final stats is the Won-Loss record.

With UNT being ranked #107 out of the D-1A schools there are plenty of D-1AA schools that are much better in the rankings.......so in reality UNT is probably ranked #130 - 145, including Appalachian and Texas State if you want to include D-1AA schools. UNT ain't even in the top 20 of D-1AA programs!!!! That's a sad statement, but probably true.

How do you feel about the four 40-56 pt loses last year??I was utterly embarassed at the way we played last year, and have no desire to see that happen to my team again.

Do you think UNT will be cannon fodder in Austin in September?? That depends on which team shows up. If a 2002 type team is in Austin, we'll give the shorthorns a run for their money. If the 2005 team shows up...

What do you think about BCS schools playing D-1AA programs??? What do you think about Mid-Majors playing D-1AA programs??? I'm not really a fan of anyone playing below their division ranking. While I understand it's important for the D1-AA schools to play large schools for the money, I don't think it really does much for the big schools, except maybe allow them to think of it as a "charity" contribution.

UNT is looking for Wins, not moral victories by losing by "X" amount of points. UNT is looking for quality wins. Beating a team we should beat anyway isn't going to get us national TV coverage or even a decent write up in our local papers. What gets us publicity, which in turn brings in recruits, is winning against quality opponents. Or even playing them to the wire. I'd actually prefer a -7 point game against TU to a close win over a D1-AA opponent. That does not mean I would prefer losing, but given the option, I think playing TU close gives us more publicity and generates more buzz around the nation than playing a D1-AA school.

I am only advocate playing one or two games a year until our W-L record improves. It could mean a record of 7-5 instead of 5-7. What would you rather have??? Appears that you want the 5-7 record and have a couple of moral loses along the way!! If I were a recruit I would be much more impressed with a series of 7-5 records (regardless who we play) instead of a series of 5-7 losing season records. I understand what you're saying about moral victories. But as you pointed out earlier, we probably don't even rank at the top of D1-AA schools. Is it better to risk losing one of those games?

I have watched UNT play D-1AA schools since we became D-1A. Probably too degrading for you. And you've seen us lose a few of them as well. I have nothing against D1-AA schools, and if UTA brings back football - even at the D1-AA level, I'd be for playing them. But playing some D1-AA school from West Virginia is not going to get butts in the seats at Fouts. We need local schools, and the best and most logical ones are TCU and SMUt - both D1-A.

Granted......I want UNT to achieve!!! I want UNT, not only be competitive, but let opponents know that we have a game plan to beat them!!!! and that every time we go on the field we know that will happen. I agree with this statement. Why can't we do that against D1-A opponents?

Sometimes you have to take a step back before taking 2 steps forward. If you're going to be aggressive, you can never step back. I fear if we take a step back as a program, we won't ever step back up. A more appropriate move would be to sit back and re-evaluate our programs and determine the best course of action so that we can become competitive. An even better move would be to make the decision to be competitive - with or without faculty support.

If you are satisfied with being #107 out of 117 D-1A teams then and maybe #140 in the nation including D-1AA teams then I can respect that. I am not satisfied with our current ranking, but I don't think playing D1-AA schools will improve it. Although strength of schedule is not nearly as important in rankings, it still carries weight in the minds of our human pollers. Those people consider who we play, and that affects the way we're ranked. Just look at TCU last season. They played a relatively cream-puff schedule, and were kept out of the BCS because of it.

I, too, am not going to address the coaching situation....I too believe that will be resolved by the end of September when we finish the bulk of the OOC games.

Edited February 27, 2006 by untgirl04

[LoveMG]

Maybe, just maybe, we hired a man to be our athletic director and we should let him do his job.

←

thnak you rv jr.

[LoveMG]

maybe just maybe we hired a man to be our head coach and we should let him do his job ?

←

2-9. no!

[Got5onIt]

thnak you rv jr.

←

LOL!!

[stebo]

I agree with you 100%, we need to be playing games that we can win right now - winning is all that matters right now. ASU went to the bowl game with a winning record last year - yes, they were only 6-5, but it was a winning record... and guess what, they played a IAA. Did anyone bring it up come bowl time? I didn't. I didn't hear the press bring it up. I didn't hear anyone on the broadcast bring it up. It is pretty normal these days. Now, you can go overboard and pull a Texas Tech where you have 2 IAA games AND a transitional IA school all in the same year - that will get you made fun of. But playing one IA game... every 3 or 4 years, no big deal. Frankly, it was kind of fun routing Samford a few years ago, I had a blast at that game. It was a feel good game, kind of like North Texas is to Texas fans. If we play a IAA game, it needs to be a crappy ass IAA team, one that we can get into Fouts cheap and beat the crap out of them. Someone like Samford. I wouldn't schedule a Texas State or an Appalachian State - they might just sneak up and beat ya.

Back to the BYU game - I have no knowledge about it - just what I have read on the boards - so this is theoretical. We probably were given the offer of playing them as a 2 for 1 in which we would go there for a low amount of money (just enough to cover our expenses) for both games and in return they would grace our presence with a game in Denton (or Dallas). OR they would pay us $250K-$400K to go there for a one shot visit. Now we already tried the 2 for 1 deal with Air Force - we held up our end of the bargain, travelled on out there for pennies - and we are still waiting for that return trip before we go BACK there for pennies again. They just haven't been able to "work us in" to their schedules any of these years. Go figure. But hey! They "owe us one"! Well, I imagine that RV felt that the BYU game would have been much of the same thing. Get us there to fill their spot next year - and then pull a delay of game for the return visit. Or maybe they wanted to come immediately back in 2007; in which we already have a full schedule, and it would cost us more to get out of our previous contracts then it would make us for a nice 24K+ crowd at Fouts. There are just so many variables that we don't really know.

All that I know is that if it was a good deal, not even a GREAT deal, just a GOOD deal - RV would have signed it immediately. You are talking about a man that got us a home and home with Tulsa. A home and home with SMU. A home and home with La Tech. (and I think he might have scored that 2-2 series with TCU, but it could have been Helwig's deal).. He has consistently scheduled well for us and gotten us into some nice regional rivalries now. Don't question him about a game with BYU, I know that he will do the right thing and even if his reasoning is that he doesn't want to bring them in here just to beat us at home - then that is just fine by me. Whatever reason he has, I accept it. He is the professional and I am going to let him do his job.

[eulesseagle]

My perception of taking a step back is to play a couple of D-1AA teams, hopefully from Texas for a couple of years to improve the Won-Loss record. I am by no means advocating and never will advocate reverting to D-1AA status.

The only cream puff that TCU played last year was SMU and the ponies won. TCU did play UTAH which went undefeated last year and had to fight to play in a BCS game. TCU's football program would complement any BCS program with its consistent quality of play and coaches. I would by no means call TCU schedule last year cream puff. IMHO, UNT could not beat any of those teams including Army and SMU.

[stebo]

My perception of taking a step back is to play a couple of D-1AA teams, hopefully from Texas for a couple of years to improve the Won-Loss record.  I am by no means advocating and never will advocate reverting to D-1AA status.

The only cream puff that TCU played last year was SMU and the ponies won.  TCU did play UTAH which went undefeated last year and had to fight to play in a BCS game.  TCU's football program would complement any BCS program with its consistent quality of play and coaches.  I would by no means call TCU schedule last year cream puff.  IMHO, UNT could not beat any of those teams including Army and SMU.

←

And TCU would have gone to a BCS game last year if they had beaten SMU... furthermore, they would have gone in 2006 under the new system that adds the 5th BCS bowl game. But we shouldn't even be talking abuot a freaking BCS bowl or any other bowl for that matter - we need to concentrate on getting back on top of the Belt for now.

[UNTLifer]

Now we already tried the 2 for 1 deal with Air Force - we held up our end of the bargain, travelled on out there for pennies - and we are still waiting for that return trip before we go BACK there for pennies again.  They just haven't been able to "work us in" to their schedules any of these years.  Go figure.  But hey! They "owe us one"! 

←

I emailed the Air Force AD this afternoon, and he replied that they would be coming to Denton on September 12, 2009. We shall see.

[Eagle1855]

But we shouldn't even be talking abuot a freaking BCS bowl or any other bowl for that matter - we need to concentrate on getting back on top of the Belt for now.

←

I feel pretty comfortable saying that if we ever win our OOC games, we will run the belt as well. The belt isnt exactly the SEC.

In other words, there is nothing wrong with trying to win our OOC games as well. We should play every year to win every game- whether you think its realisatic or not. Thats the kind of coach I want at NT. And in the end that MIGHT just put us near the BCS games. Who cares if we make it or not- people will be talking about NT. TCU came one game from it. UTAH did it. I dont see why NT couldnt do it some day. Think big, folks

[LongJim]

Think big. $$$ comes with winning. C-USA comes with winning. Fans show up to see winners- at the Div 1 level against opponents of whom they have heard. Nobody wants to watch us play SFA, Nicholls State, McNeese or any other lousy 1AA football program. I have less incentive to make a trip from Houston to see us play one of those teams. Excuse me for not being able to get excited about those prospects.

←

I agree w/UNTGirl and 1855.

Which is a better matchup for the metroplex entertainment dollar: TCU vs. Air Force, SMU vs. Houston, or UNT vs. Sam Houston State/Angelo State/Altered State?

Which is more likely to attract ESPN coverage? Which is more interesting/impressive to a potential recruit?

[SilverEagle]

I agree w/UNTGirl and 1855.

Which is a better matchup for the metroplex entertainment dollar:  TCU vs. Air Force, SMU vs. Houston, or UNT vs. Sam Houston State/Angelo State/Altered State?

Which is more likely to attract ESPN coverage?  Which is more interesting/impressive to a potential recruit?

←

....and more to the point, which of those is a more attractive draw for the casual/fence-riding NT alum who is trying to decide how to spend his/her entertainment dollar during the fall?

As my son (a UNT grad) pointed out (when I was talking about our four bowl wins) "how many of those bowl games did we win? When was the last time we beat a D-1 team that amounted to a hill of beans?"

Having said that, I tend to believe that we need to get some OCC wins any way we can.....and that includes scheduling some 1-AA schools.

Edited February 28, 2006 by SilverEagle

[NT91]

I emailed the Air Force AD this afternoon, and he replied that they would be coming to Denton on September 12, 2009.  We shall see.

←

I hope to a new Fouts by 2009!

[NT80]

I emailed the Air Force AD this afternoon, and he replied that they would be coming to Denton on September 12, 2009.  We shall see.

←

That would be the year the new stadium is "suppossed" to open.

[TIgreen01]

I agree with you 100%, we need to be playing games that we can win right now - winning is all that matters right now.  ASU went to the bowl game with a winning record last year - yes, they were only 6-5, but it was a winning record... and guess what, they played a IAA.  Did anyone bring it up come bowl time?  I didn't.  I didn't hear the press bring it up.  I didn't hear anyone on the broadcast bring it up.  It is pretty normal these days.  Now, you can go overboard and pull a Texas Tech where you have 2 IAA games AND a transitional IA school all in the same year - that will get you made fun of.  But playing one IA game... every 3 or 4 years, no big deal.  Frankly, it was kind of fun routing Samford a few years ago, I had a blast at that game.  It was a feel good game, kind of like North Texas is to Texas fans.  If we play a IAA game, it needs to be a crappy ass IAA team, one that we can get into Fouts cheap and beat the crap out of them.  Someone like Samford.  I wouldn't schedule a Texas State or an Appalachian State - they might just sneak up and beat ya.

Back to the BYU game - I have no knowledge about it - just what I have read on the boards - so this is theoretical.  We probably were given the offer of playing them as a 2 for 1 in which we would go there for a low amount of money (just enough to cover our expenses) for both games and in return they would grace our presence with a game in Denton (or Dallas).  OR they would pay us $250K-$400K to go there for a one shot visit.  Now we already tried the 2 for 1 deal with Air Force - we held up our end of the bargain, travelled on out there for pennies - and we are still waiting for that return trip before we go BACK there for pennies again.  They just haven't been able to "work us in" to their schedules any of these years.  Go figure.  But hey! They "owe us one"!  Well, I imagine that RV felt that the BYU game would have been much of the same thing.  Get us there to fill their spot next year - and then pull a delay of game for the return visit.  Or maybe they wanted to come immediately back in 2007; in which we already have a full schedule, and it would cost us more to get out of our previous contracts then it would make us for a nice 24K+ crowd at Fouts.  There are just so many variables that we don't really know. 

All that I know is that if it was a good deal, not even a GREAT deal, just a GOOD deal - RV would have signed it immediately.  You are talking about a man that got us a home and home with Tulsa.  A home and home with SMU.  A home and home with La Tech.  (and I think he might have scored that 2-2 series with TCU, but it could have been Helwig's deal).. He has consistently scheduled well for us and gotten us into some nice regional rivalries now.  Don't question him about a game with BYU, I know that he will do the right thing and even if his reasoning is that he doesn't want to bring them in here just to beat us at home - then that is just fine by me.  Whatever reason he has, I accept it.  He is the professional and I am going to let him do his job.

←

Good post. Let us not forget that you will start seeing BCS schools schedule MORE I-AA teams from here on out as the rule change allows for 1 I-AA game a year to count toward bowl eligibility (someone correct me if I have the rule wrong). Either way, the bottom line is $$ and you make more $$ if you go to a bowl game. Look how our attendance has grown the last 5 years by winning the Belt and having a winning record. I think people here at NT get too worked up over the chance to make the front page with an upset of a Big 12 (BCS)team and are just not opening their eyes at games. We have more fans showing up to games at Fouts now than we did in 2001. Even with our putrid OOC record, we are still growing the fanbase. I don't see how playing 1 I-AA game a year hurts us....it really should be our tune-up game at the start of the season, ala what every BCS team is doing scheduling weaker teams to act as a preseason game.

Do I personally get excited about playing I-AA teams? No. But more wins = more $$. It can happen the other way around where more $$ = more wins, but I don't see any big donors stepping up, so we need to win more games. It's not rocket science.