Big East not looking

[PlummMeanGreen]

IMHO, the WAC or CUSA would be a step up from what we are currently doing now. 

1.  If UNT was offered a bid, tomorrow, to join the WAC would I do it? YES!

2.  If UNT was offered a bid, tomorrow, to join the CUSA would I do it? YES!

3.  Do I prefer one over the other? NO!

I really do not believe that if UNT had won all four bowl games that we would have been invited to another conference.  UNT slapped the WAC in the face by saying no we do not want to move up and be in a more presitious conference than the SBC.  To me the "university fathers" were blatently stating that we are complacently content to stay where we are in the worst D-1A conference in America were in any given year there are D-1AA conferences that end up with higher conference rankings than the SBC.  My questions to the "university fathers are:

1.  Do you just want to field sports teams "just" for entertainment?

2.  Do you have any intentions to move this program forward to a better conference and more prestige?

If the "university fathers" insist that sports teams at UNT are for the expressed purpose of "entertainment" then why not go to a "non-scholarship" program and join the likes of Ausin College in their conference.

If the "university fathers" intentions are to move the program to the next level then they should be laying the "ground work" for the next level like:

1.  Commiting manpower and financial resources for a new stadium.

2.  Re-evaluating our current coaching situation.  Remember that DD was 13-33-1 as an (un)offensive coordinator at UTEP and SMU and 39-55 as head coach at UNT.  As a casual observer this unimpressive record tells me that Coach DD is not the man, including his staff, to lead us anywhere other than fighting it out in the SBC.  His OOC record is abysmal, to be kind.

UTEP is made the move with a dynamic coach....and financial windfalls for the program.

Idaho is making the move with a dynamic coach.

TT (BB) made the move with a dynamic coach....and financial windfalls for the program.

NMSU is making a move....and.....I will have to agree with the poster who said that in a couple of years NMSU along with Idaho and Utah State will out pace UNT in our current and lathargic position.

Unfortuately, the UNT system is broke from top to bottom.  IMHO, movement begins at the top and blame for the dysfunctional system, that we currenly operate under today, rests solely on the shoulders of the "university fathers." 

1.  What other system would the hiring of a coach with a 13-33-1 record as an OC?

2.  What other system would allow a coach to be kept after a record of 39-55?

3.  What other system would allow the OC to be kept after yelling at fans?

4.  What other system would allow the HC to belittle the team, himself and fans on radio?

5.  What other system embraces mediocracy as a guidepost to success?

My concern is that Troy, LaLa or MTSU may overtake UNT in athletics at our current pace.  When the next conference "shake ups" take place (and they most certainly will) the current complacently content system that our "university fathers" so embrace today will keep UNT in an antiquated athletic system of yesteryear.

←

One could hardly add much more than what you have posted with all those thoughts, eulesseagle.

It just downright bothers me that I (as well as others of you who have told me the same on this subject in recent weeks); anyway, how some of us have lost so much interest in all this to the extent that for the first time since 1960 some of us haven't even purchased a Dave Campbell's TEXAS FOOTBALL magazine or have plans to. (Yes, I know, Lone Star blasphemy)!

Even funnier (in a way I suppose) is how it would only take so few strategic moves, personel changes and (yes, in deedy) a new football stadium that could turn all this 180 degrees for many of us who really at present don't see a solid game plan from our campus that indicates an upwardly bound direction to get us in the Top 50 NCAA D1-A schools. Yet all some of us do see (or hear about) are that other NT officials seem to be trying to jump off this UNT ship they've been steering in years past and one can only use their imaginations as to why with that.

It's amazing, though, what one can see once one steps away from something and sees things for what they really are or what they really seem to be. I feel for our much older alums who are seeing all their own dreams for this athletic program simply slip away as they are in the middle of their golden years as well as for the many of you young gun NT alums who I think in another 30 years or so of following all this just as faithfully as many of us have done; anyway, for our younger NT Exes who may not see any more progress than what they are seeing now. To you younger NT Exes, it will also amaze you all just how quickly 3 decades will pass before you as you follow the Mean Green scene.

ADDENDUM: The part about us building a new football stadium that has personally been of utmost concern the last 2 or so years and especially in light of our present administration begs the question: Would a Lee Jackson-led UNT System really ever push for a new football stadium in Denton, Texas, USA, that would literally cost more than what is in the entire financial endowment coffers of the UNT System ($39 million total at last count)?

Thus............the main reason I have always contended (and will till Armeggedon begins) that UNT will (still) have to have a, uh, Big Donor or 2 or 3 to get a new football stadium built at our main campus.

Edited July 23, 2006 by PlummMeanGreen

[NT80]

ADDENDUM:  The part about us building a new football stadium that has personally been of utmost concern the last 2 or so years and especially in light of our present administration begs the question:  Would a Lee Jackson-led UNT System really ever push for a new football stadium in Denton, Texas, USA, that would literally cost more than what is in the entire financial endowment coffers of the UNT System ($39 million total at last count)?

Thus............the main reason I have always contended (and will till Armeggedon begins) that UNT will (still) have to have a, uh,  Big Donor or 2 or 3 to get a new football stadium built at our main campus.

←

I really thought the new stadium was gaining momentum a couple years ago. We produced a sales video for it. We had construction at Eagle Point going full steam, then everything stadium-wise just stopped and no explanation since. Rumors have it we are waiting for one big donor. Some thought McInvale was it or the Interstate Battery guy but I guess no one was willing to write the check like Boone Pickens did for Ok State. Rumors also that there is a stadium campaign but I've never seen it pushed or ever been contacted about it, if it even exists at all. Mums the word lately.

Edited July 23, 2006 by NT80

[LongJim]

IMHO, the WAC or CUSA would be a step up from what we are currently doing now. 

1.  If UNT was offered a bid, tomorrow, to join the WAC would I do it? YES!

2.  If UNT was offered a bid, tomorrow, to join the CUSA would I do it? YES!

3.  Do I prefer one over the other? NO!

My answers would be:

1. NO!

2. HELL YES!

3. HELL YES!

I really do not believe that if UNT had won all four bowl games that we would have been invited to another conference.  UNT slapped the WAC in the face by saying no we do not want to move up and be in a more presitious conference than the SBC.  To me the "university fathers" were blatently stating that we are complacently content to stay where we are in the worst D-1A conference in America were in any given year there are D-1AA conferences that end up with higher conference rankings than the SBC.

Well, I don't know the in's and out's of that decision, but I believe it was the right one to make. To be honest, the SBC appears to be a pretty well-run conference, and I believe the commissioner is doing a lot of things right, compared to a lot of even *gulp* mid-major and larger conferences.

No, it's not the most prestigious or competitive, but really--who gives a sh!t about the WAC in Texas? I certainly don't. Frankly, I wouldn't get any more excited over a WAC slate at Fouts than an SBC one, and I'd bet that Mom and Dad in the recruiting living rooms of Texas wouldn't either. They know schools like SMU, Rice, Houston, UTEP, etc., and they will perk up when they hear 'little Johnny' is going to play those schools. The SBC is frankly the lesser of two evils for UNT vs. the WAC, IMO.

UNT (IMO) shouldn't accept just any bid to move up from the SBC. IMO, they need to DOMINATE the SBC, dramatically increase attendance and donations, and maintain. Those last two items come with one thing: consistent W-I-N-N-I-N-G.

The bigger conferences will come calling, and UNT will get it's shot, but it has to demonstrate that it can be competitive w/bigger programs and build it's program attendance-wise and facilities-wise.

Edited July 23, 2006 by LongJim

[DeepGreen]

For all of those who would like a UNT move to the WAC, remember the Big West. It really wasn't that bad of a conference, was it? With the WAC, the addition of Hawai, San Jose, Fresno St is not too bad either.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

----I am 100% agreement with Long Jim (Horn). We do not want anything to do with the WAC....apparently SMU, UTEP, Rice, and Tulsa were not thrilled with it either....they left.

---The WAC would do absolutely nothing to help create any more interest than currently exists in the Sun-Belt. Being a member of the WAC would not help recruiting, not fan interest, and not media interest...... and about all that would increase would be travel costs. Remember, football is not the only sport we are involved in. It would be a terrible move on our part. No one in Texas is impressed or cares that we beat Fresno State or whoever. I personally see more potential for improvement in the SunBelt. The Belt plays a lot of SEC, ACC, CUSA, and Big XII teams largely because we are mixed-up within their conference boundaries. If the Belt starts getting wins then people will notice, No one gives a frap about Mountain-Zone schools and only the far Western Pac-10 has a lot respect and most people don't follow many of them outside of the California ones. The Pac-10 and WAC often finish their games after Texas and Eastern newspapers have gone to press and people watching TV news/sports has gone to bed. We would be worse off.

---The WAC would be an awful move anyway you look at it, even that area is sparce in population for the most part (except Calf.).

---CUSA may happen. For one, Memphis may not stay in that conf. The Big East is an odd conference at the moment. It really is two groups ..those that play football and those that don't. To me that conference is not stable......yet.... who knows what will happen there, it could split up some. If some of the football playing ones aren't successful in basketball as they have been they many decide to split off to start over. That happened in the old MVC...Louisville, Cinn, Memphis and North Texas left, they played football the most of others didn't. They basically split over football issues which the basketball ones did not care about.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

My answers would be:

1. NO!

2. HELL YES!

3. HELL YES!

Well, I don't know the in's and out's of that decision, but I believe it was the right one to make.  To be honest, the SBC appears to be a pretty well-run conference, and I believe the commissioner is doing a lot of things right, compared to a lot of even *gulp* mid-major and larger conferences. 

No, it's not the most prestigious or competitive, but really--who gives a sh!t about the WAC in Texas?  I certainly don't.  Frankly, I wouldn't get any more excited over a WAC slate at Fouts than an SBC one, and I'd bet that Mom and Dad in the recruiting living rooms of Texas wouldn't either.  They know schools like SMU, Rice, Houston, UTEP, etc., and they will perk up when they hear 'little Johnny' is going to play those schools.  The SBC is  frankly the lesser of two evils for UNT vs. the WAC, IMO.

UNT (IMO) shouldn't accept just any bid to move up from the SBC.  IMO, they need to DOMINATE the SBC, dramatically increase attendance and donations, and maintain.  Those last two items come with one thing:  consistent W-I-N-N-I-N-G.

The bigger conferences will come calling, and UNT will get it's shot, but it has to demonstrate that it can be competitive w/bigger programs and build it's program attendance-wise and facilities-wise. 

←

I understand and appreciate your thoughts about the conference that North Texas should be in. I doubt that there's a single poster on this board (with UNT ties) that wouldn't prefer CUSA over the WAC. The problem is since CUSA is a 12-team conference there is no hope of joining unless a BCS conference decided to take one or more CUSA teams. The chances of that happening soon are somewhere between slim and none.

On the other hand, the WAC is a 9-team conference and one of those (San Jose State) is a little shaky. SJSU's faculty senate wants to abolish football and their low attendance does make a financial drain on the university. In addition, one of their members, Louisiana Tech is about 800 miles away from its closest conference opponent. They would like to have a travel partner for La Tech and help solidify the conference's continuing existence. Two years ago we were extended an invitation to join and we turned it down. Then, the University of Louisiana (Lafayette) was also asked to join and they, too, said no. I believe that we turned it down because that kill the SBC as a football conference. I rather think that ULL would not accept for the same reason.

It's funny, you mentioned that there were no Texas teams in the WAC but there were four in CUSA. Of the four that you cited, all except Houston are former WAC members. So moving up to the WAC would not necessarily rule out iventually becoming a member of CUSA. Also, while the WAC is merely a shadow of its former self, it is still the better known conference to Texas recruits vs. the Sun Belt.

As to DOMINATING the SBC, how can you get any more dominating than we were in our first four years? In spite of that dominance, we lost three of four bowl games and something like sixteen of eighteen non-conference games against Division 1-A opponents during that period. Part of that record is understandable since there are about two losses each to Texas, OU, and LSU. The problem is that it is harder to recruit to the Belt. We've had some good players, to be sure, but many have either been late qualifiers, junior college transfers or under the radar. I don't think that we've had a Top 50 DFW player in two years.

If I had my way, I'd like to see the WAC invite us, Louisiana, and Arkansas State to make a 12 team conference and have (SBC commissioner) Wright Waters as the new commissioner. Then, I'd hope that SJSU would throw in the towel and be replaced by Troy. It could help with that attendance increase and improved giving if we are competitive.

Now, if you know somebody that knows somebody that could get us into CUSA then I'd change my tune in a heartbeat.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Stadium:

---If we start defeating saome "name" schools especially some from Texas, the probability of a new stadium greatly increases.... There will more interest and more fans in attendence. That is key at this point. "TheSMU game is Big" as it could starting shifting more interest in our direction from the area fans. A win at Texas (though extremely unlikely) would do wonders as well.

[DeepGreen]

----I am 100% agreement with Long Jim (Horn).  We do not want anything to do with the WAC....apparently SMU, UTEP, Rice, and Tulsa were not thrilled with it either....they left.

←

I think SMU, Rice, and Tulsa all left the WAC for CUSA because Cinncinatti, Louisville, and USF left for the Big East when it got raided. UTEP was added to round out to 12 teams. SMU, Rice and Tulsa bolted the WAC because of the CUSA openings. Just like NT would do if the opportunity presented itself. The chances of that happening to us now, SBC to CUSA, are slim, remote, and none.

Bottom line is, we blew it.

[PlummMeanGreen]

Stadium: 

---If we start defeating saome "name" schools especially some from Texas, the probability of a new stadium greatly increases.... There will more interest and more fans in attendence.  That is key at this point.  "TheSMU game is Big" as it could starting shifting more interest in our direction from the area fans. A win at  Texas  (though extremely unlikely) would do wonders as well.

←

SCREAMING EAGLE-66, although I agree with most of your thoughts most of the time on this forum, I do beg to differ with you (and others) on the importance of the SMU game this Fall.

IMO, winning big games has rarely made a noticeable impact with our athletic program as far as bringing our rich and famous from out of the woodwork. One year under Corky Nelson, we beat 2 or 3 SWC schools as a 1-AA football program, almost beat a Texas Longhorn football team coached by David McWilliams; yet during those times of quality wins over quality schools, we didn't even win the Southland Conference football championship.

What would really be big for NORTH TEXAS would be when our new leaders surprise many of us by recognizing that we are on a very fast track to nowhere athletically and they (very pro-actively ) take the bull by the horns (so to speak) start looking at other models or NCAA D1-A athletic programs who have dramatically turned their football programs around while at the same time distancing themselves from a Bottom 10/Bottom Quadrant co-existance while even getting the occasional Top 25 ranking (such as Mike Price and the UTEP Miners pulled off in about his 2'nd or 3'rd year as the head football coach in El Paso).

IMO, what else needs to happen at UNT needs to (most likely) happen in one of the large conference rooms located in the Alfred F. Hurley Administration Building. In that conference room our new leadership and NT Board of Regents would hopefully create a long-term blueprint for athletic success that will remove us (once and for all) from our present mode of operation which has us annually competing and at season's end ranking closer to all the NCAA D1-A Bottom 10 schools than most any NT Exes' preferred status of being ranked in the Top 25 (or closer to that grouping of schools).

Other than for some local bragging rights among alums at DFW area office water coolers, I don't see an SMU win this Fall making any more difference than our 1990 win over the Stangs did (when we could not seal the deal that season by winning an SLC football championship). Question: What did that 1990 win over SMU do that was really so defining, long-lasting & significant for our football or athletic program (other than for the fact that it was SRO for the game albeit in a Fouts Field that had less seats)?

[Quoner]

SCREAMING EAGLE-66, although I agree with most of your thoughts most of the time on this forum, I do beg to differ with you (and others) on the importance of the SMU game this Fall. 

IMO, winning big games has rarely made a noticeable impact with our athletic program as far as bringing our rich and famous from out of the woodwork.  One year under Corky Nelson, we beat 2 or 3 SWC schools as a 1-AA football program, almost beat a Texas Longhorn football team coached by David McWilliams;  yet during those times of quality wins over quality schools, we didn't even win the Southland Conference football championship.

What would really be big for NORTH TEXAS would be when our new leaders surprise many of us by recognizing that we are on a very fast track to nowhere athletically and they (very pro-actively ) take the bull by the horns (so to speak) start looking at other models or NCAA D1-A athletic programs who have dramatically turned their football programs around while at the same time distancing themselves from a Bottom 10/Bottom Quadrant co-existance while even getting the occasional Top 25 ranking (such as Mike Price and the UTEP Miners pulled off in about his 2'nd or 3'rd year as the head football coach in El Paso).

IMO, what else needs to happen at UNT needs to (most likely) happen in one of the large conference rooms located in the Alfred F. Hurley Administration Building.  In that conference room our new leadership and NT Board of Regents would hopefully create a  long-term blueprint for athletic success that will remove us (once and for all) from our present mode of operation which has us annually competing and at season's end ranking closer to all the NCAA D1-A Bottom 10 schools than most any NT Exes' preferred status of being ranked in the Top 25 (or closer to that grouping of schools).

Other than for some local bragging rights among alums at DFW area office water coolers, I don't see an SMU win this Fall making any more difference than our 1990 win over the Stangs did (when we could not seal the deal that season by winning an SLC football championship).  Question:  What did that 1990 win over SMU do that was really so defining, long-lasting & significant for our football or athletic program (other than for the fact that it was SRO for the game albeit in a Fouts Field that had less seats)?

←

Bingo. What we need is an all around strong program in all sports and a guiding master plan. We don't need scattered wins here or there. That's why I laugh when people say they wouldn't want a "Devil" Fran type coach at this school or would rather beat SMU than Texas.

You move conferences with your overall program, not just your football team. Even during our years of winning SBC titles, our other sports didn't do much - fix that, and win another 4 straight football conference crowns, and see where that takes you. We challenged the other SBC schools to catch us in football and they did. We need to up that bar again and take them with us - that's how we build this now. Keep doing that, and OOC wins, fans, and recruits will come.

We have an admin more worried about pissing off faculty and pushing career signature development projects than turning this into a great regional institution. It sucks. We all want more respect for NT, but ultimately fans can only do so much to get it.

[LongJim]

It's funny, you mentioned that there were no Texas teams in the WAC but there were four in CUSA.  Of the four that you cited, all except Houston are former WAC members.

And your point is?

That was then, and this is now. We are talking about 'now', right? As of now, there are no Texas teams in the WAC, and it would be folly for UNT to consider a move to the WAC right now.

So moving up to the WAC would not necessarily rule out iventually becoming a member of CUSA.

Yes, a move "up" to the WAC would not necessarily rule out an eventual move to CUSA--but neither does UNT's current membership in the SBC.

 

Also, while the WAC is merely a shadow of its former self, it is still the better known conference to Texas recruits vs. the Sun Belt.

That may be, but that doesn't mean it's a better fit FOR UNT than the SBC RIGHT NOW. Factoring in the strain a WAC membership would impose on the UNT athletic program, I think the SBC is a better fit. 3 years ago? Yeah, there were several Texas teams in the WAC. It still wouldn't have been a good fit for UNT considering the budget the athletic department has to work with, even with Texas schools.

Why couldn't UNT save itself several MORE years of beating it's head against the wall and when they make the move, make it to a better conference? The program wasn't "ready" to join the WAC 2 years ago. I find it difficult to believe that UNT and ULaLa decided not to join the WAC just to save the dear old SBC. Good lord!

As to DOMINATING the SBC, how can you get any more dominating than we were in our first four years?  In spite of that dominance, we lost three of four bowl games and something like sixteen of eighteen non-conference games against Division 1-A opponents during that period.

IMO, part and parcel of DOMINATING is kicking your conferences tail regularly, and winning your bowl games and decent OOC games as well. PMG and many others have their opinions on the solution to THAT issue, but it's up the AD coaching staff, etc., to do their thing to make that happen.

How long do you give 'em? *shrug* After 4 bowls: Is recruiting getting better? Are OOC games now winnable/competitive? Are the teams disciplined and the offense/defense given the best chance to succeed given the personnel? Are the season ticket sales substantial, and going up? Are the big donors coming in? *shrug*

If those things are happening, that's when you make the jump to a bigger conference, because the other conferences will beat your door down. If they're not happening, you still have to ask the same questions in your new conference--where answering affirmative to those questions just got a lot harder. Dominating the SBC means getting the recruits that otherwise will go to your conference rivals. Dominating means leading the SBC in attendance in every sport. Dominating means your revenues lead the conference. Dominating means your donors far surpass the donors of your conference rivals.

Is UNT really that dominating in the SBC?

If I had my way, I'd like to see the WAC invite us, Louisiana, and Arkansas State to make a 12 team conference and have (SBC commissioner) Wright Waters as the new commissioner.  Now, if you know somebody that knows somebody that could get us into CUSA then I'd change my tune in a heartbeat.

←

From what I've seen of him, I like Waters. He seems to know what he's doing, but IMO--and no offense--the WAC's a terrible move for UNT.

I appreciate your viewpoint, though GE1. Great to hear others views.

[FirefightnRick]

We have an admin more worried about pissing off faculty and pushing career signature development projects than turning this into a great regional institution. It sucks. We all want more respect for NT, but ultimately fans can only do so much to get it.

←

There is so much truth to this that it hurts to admit it. In all honesty there truly is some scary shit going on at NT. So much so that I'm trying not to even think about it, and have rather tried to keep my mind busy on other things such as getting the limber completed for "Boomer".

Rick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I think SMU, Rice, and Tulsa all left the WAC for CUSA because Cinncinatti, Louisville, and USF left for the Big East when it got raided.  UTEP was added to round out to 12 teams.  SMU, Rice and Tulsa bolted the WAC because of the CUSA openings.  Just like NT would do if the opportunity presented itself. The chances of that happening to us now, SBC to CUSA, are slim, remote, and none.

Bottom line is, we blew it.

←

---What you said is true.... but they left the WAC because they viewed CUSA as better than the WAC. The WAC is even less attractive now that it has "moved" further West. Poor LaTech is now very isolated with only one conference school within 1000 miles of it. Their conference games will not attract any media or fan interest. The UNT/ LaTech game is a lot more interesting to their fans than any of their conference games.

---I do disagree that we will never improve our status... I still think the Big-East is not stable and those changes could eventually effect CUSA and Sunbelt teams. The Big East contains 8 schools that play football and 8 more that don't. It is unstable partially because of its size. That is 16 teams trying to win one basketball championship.... some will get discourage and want to change the situation. It may take a few years but it will fall apart.... just as the WAC did when it got too large... many left and formed the Western Athletic and the WAC and struggled to be stable ever since.

---Don't be surprised if the Mountain West doesn't add a team to go to 10 members as well. So many conference have 12 members now which creates an end of season playoff. the Pac-10 could raid the Mountain West l for a couple of teams.. If either of those happen the WAC could be doomed..... There is really nothing else out there to add.... plus LaTech isn't too pleased with their situation with the WAC either and may drop out of the WAC. They may be forced to go back to the Belt for financial (travel) reasons.

---As Yogi said is ain't over til it is over... and it is not over.... just a temporary time out at the moment while things stabilize somewhat and people see greener pastures elsewhere..

---We need to better position ourselves for the next big swapfest!!!! It is a lot like earthquakes....... a lot of calm periods and then comes chaos and changes.

[PlummMeanGreen]

There is so much truth to this that it hurts to admit it.    In all honesty there truly is some scary shit going on at NT.  So much so that I'm trying not to even think about it,  and have rather tried to keep my mind busy on other things such as getting the limber completed for "Boomer".

Rick

←

Well, I guess we will all find out what that "pro athletic" Board of Regents is made of in the next few years, eh, Rick?

A true concern of some is that we may now have leadership (even with UNT ties, ie, from our Board of Regents) whose thought processes or possibly altered new mind-sets might be something to this effect: "Well, see there now, after 4 bowl games we still cannot garner fan support for all this, so lets just let Chancellor Lee Jackson do what he wants, give him an open check book and if feels the de-emphases of NCCA D1-A football at UNT-Denton should be part of all this then...........so be it."

A few more searching questions might be: Are NT's latest and new present leadership (including perhaps even a couple from our BOR's who may even be vascillating concerning the place of NCAA D1-A athletics at UNT); anyway, are our UNT officials going to always allow the Sun Belt Conference to be our bell cow as to what this athletic program can or cannot do now and in the future? If so, IMHO, that would be a sad mistake and I know many of you who would feel the same.

Do our UNT officials blame our fans for not showing up en mass at an old, dilapidated and archaic football stadium that is still a pink elephant to the eyes of thousands of daily commuters out on Interstate-35 E adjacent to Fouts Field; and here we are with a college football stadium in the year 2006 of which its prime 50 yard line seats are still almost 40 yards from the field of action?

Do NT officials continue to think Denton County newcomers will buy into all this with the 4'th largest university in Texas of which its on-campus football stadium cannot even compare to what their kids have at their own Texas high school football stadiums with all those venue's modern ammenities?

Lest a hardy handful of our newest and most recent versions of appointed NT leadership (w/o UNT degrees, of course) might have forgoten and that would be this: The University of North Texas (Denton) is located at the apex of a major league sports market; located in the 6'th largest TV market in the USA and now from a Dallas Morning News news article from just last week............the North Texas Metroplex has now moved up to become the 4'th largest metropolitan area in the entire USA.

Nevertheless in what is a major league sports market here in DFW you will find that most of its college football fans want to experience major college football against (major) schools we've all heard about, but at UNT all these years and decades later, we still have every bit of that show-cased in a............MAJOR COLLEGE WITH A FOOTBALL STADIUM THAT HAS A BLANKETY-BLANKED TRACK INSIDE THE GOL' DARNED THING.

.......................................................................

AND GEE-WILLAKERS, HARRY, I AM ONLY 4 POSTS AWAY FROM 8,000! ! !

Edited July 24, 2006 by PlummMeanGreen

[SilverEagle]

Do NT officials continue to think Denton County newcomers will buy into all this with the 4'th largest university in Texas of which its on-campus football stadium cannot even compare to what their kids have at their own Texas high school football stadiums with all those venue's modern ammenities?

I don't know what the officials (the ones above RV) are thinking about our venue. But every time I drive up 156 to Lake Ray Roberts, I pass within clear view of one of those new Texas High School venues.....Northwest High School stadium.

All I can do is just shake my head, and try not to think what most of the HS recruits in this area are thinking when they're taken on a recruitment visit to North Texas.

Let's see, HS venues that are probably far superior to Fouts.

Southlake Stadium

Northwest Stadium

Birdville Stadium

Denton ISD stadium

Burleson ISD stadium.

[PHSCoach]

Well, I guess we will all find out what that "pro athletic" Board of Regents is made of in the next few years, eh, Rick?

A true concern of some is that we may now have leadership (even with UNT ties, ie, from our Board of Regents) whose thought processes or possibly altered new mind-sets might be something to this effect: "Well, see there now, after 4 bowl games we still cannot garner fan support for all this, so lets just let Chancellor Lee Jackson do what he wants, give him an open check book and if feels the de-emphases of NCCA D1-A football at UNT-Denton should be part of all this then...........so be it."

And the fact that the program lost about $3,500,000 in the 2004-2005 season. This is a problem that CUSA could not over look

[MeanGreen61]

And the fact that the program lost about $3,500,000 in the 2004-2005 season. This is a problem that CUSA could not over look

←

This site has a slightly different revenue & expense picture. "Non allocated by gender" probably includes student fees.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetail.asp?CRITERIA=3

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

And the fact that the program lost about $3,500,000 in the 2004-2005 season. This is a problem that CUSA could not over look

←

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetail.asp?CRITERIA=3

If we lost $3.5 million then someone falsified a report to the federal government. To be sure, we have some budget constraints and have to be careful but that shouldn't hamstring the BOR into ignoring athletics.

This is not aimed at you PHS Coach but to others who think that Lee Jackson is taking the money from athletics and spending it on the Dallas campus...he can't. He is not allowed to touch the money earmarked for athletics and any discretionary money that he might want moved has to have the approval of the Board of Regents. And. if he has taken money from the main campus for UNTD it, too, is cleverly disguised because there is still a tremendous amount of construction of new building going on.

I guess that means if it's not Lee Jackson's fault it must be SMUs.

[PHSCoach]

If we lost $3.5 million then someone falsified a report to the federal government.  To be sure, we have some budget constraints and have to be careful but that shouldn't hamstring the BOR into ignoring athletics.

←

Or the AD Dept is falsifing info to the public under the Freedom of Info Act>>>

Edited July 24, 2006 by PHSCoach

[MeanGreen61]

Or the AD Dept is falsifing info to the public under the Freedom of Info Act>>>

←

Yea, right.

[SilverEagle]

Or the AD Dept is falsifing info to the public under the Freedom of Info Act>>>

←

If you're going to falsify information, more than likely you'd do it to make yourself look good.

[pollock]

Wow. Just when I thought the whole Net Neutrality debate was going to go away, PMG starts posting again. So much for bandwidth.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

$3.5 million loss ...... It is not exactly all football in fact most it probably isn't.... Golf, Tennis, track, and a whole lot of other sports bring in nothing [at most colleges] in revenue and are a financial burden to the athletic dept....all cost and no or tiny income. Football at many schools underwrite everything else--- for example UT football takes in a fortune in football money when you consider the stadium size times the costs of tickets. Kick in bowl money, TV money, and branded items (hats, shirts. etc.) They are successful and have a good donation fund as well as a result..

---Other have problems as well... SMU cut track and some other sports just recently if you remember. Maybe CUSA looked at it, maybe not. They ignored SMU and Rice who has very few alums and no large fan base.

Edited July 24, 2006 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Arkstfan]

The Big East probably will expand after it splits and it probably will add one team. Most likely Central Florida (cost saving measure for basketball and non-revenue sports).

The WAC offered UNT, you were given University of Louisiana System documents from a conference mate in the same university system as Louisiana Tech and your financial people saw with their own eyes that the WAC was not telling the truth about the financial situation and saw the real cost of travel.

The WAC truthfully had little interest in expanding this direction and only looked this way to avoid taking Idaho. There was one and only one WAC vote in favor of going to 12 and having eastern and western divisions and that was the only thing that could make the financials work.

The WAC offered the Cajuns and given the choice between being a full member of the WAC with La.Tech and being a full member of the Belt with La.-Monroe a school they didn't WANT to invite in the league but had to because there were no other options, they opted to stick with ULM.

Anyone who believes the WAC was a meritorious option needs to let that sink in. The Cajuns would do anything to get away from ULM but they wouldn't do that.

[PlummMeanGreen]

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetail.asp?CRITERIA=3

If we lost $3.5 million then someone falsified a report to the federal government.  To be sure, we have some budget constraints and have to be careful but that shouldn't hamstring the BOR into ignoring athletics.

This is not aimed at you PHS Coach but to others who think that Lee Jackson is taking the money from athletics and spending it on the Dallas campus...he can't.  He is not allowed to touch the money earmarked for athletics and any discretionary money that he might want moved has to have the approval of the Board of Regents.  And. if he has taken money from the main campus for UNTD it, too, is cleverly disguised because there is still a tremendous amount of construction of new building going on.

I guess that means if it's not Lee Jackson's fault it must be SMUs.

←

OK, I'll bite on that last sentence, Jack...

Actually, its not that many of us feel Lee Jackson has become UNT's version of some kind of anti-Christ toward UNT athletics (so to speak) nor many of us really personally feel Jackson is leading the way in taking anything (monetarily) from our main campus that could be used at the fledgling UNT-Dallas campus and while on that subject, a campus that is having one helluva' time in becoming a free-standing university and has missed several deadlines set by the Texas legislataure to do so. I think UNT-Dallas was mostly a good idea to just a few south Dallas County politicians and some UNT leaders who forgot to check our campus coffers and checkbooks to see if we could even begin to properly fund such a university without affecting the campus coffers at our main campus.

What do I mean when I suggest UNT-Dallas effecting the coffers at our main university? Whatever big monies get raised by NT fundraisers from DFW area Fortune 500 type companies (and smaller) that are earmarked for UNT-Dallas, there will still be some of us out here who will wonder why said company never gave one red nickel to UNT-Denton over the last 100 plus years that they had the opportunity to do so? FUTURE HEADLINE: UNT-DALLAS GETS $20 MILLION FROM TOP DALLAS COMPANY! (Well, that would be fine and dandy for the south Dallas campus, but while the rest of us sit at Fouts Field on Game Day circa 2011, might there be some of our group wondering why UNT fundraisers still cannot seem to come up with a similar $20 million (or more) that could have really played a big part in our getting rid of what is still our campus' worst eye-sore circa 2006, ie, our venerable Fouts Field.

Yet observing all indications and even while getting some feedback from some I've spoken to most of whom you know, Jack, and with most of that group who almost unanimously say that Lee Jackson will never be a Norval Pohl when it comes to seeing (and fully understanding) the importance of a vibrant NCAA D1-A inter-collegiate athletic program at UNT-Denton; and for there to be an aspiring and upwardly bound athletic program at a school the size, scope and (supposed) high athletic aspiritions of a school such as NORTH TEXAS.

We all know that ex UNT president Norval Pohl set a pro-active/pro-NT athletics mode of cooperation on our campus almost from Day One when he became our alma mater's president. He also didn't just beat drums about all that, either, but made sure that funding would be made available for Mean Green athletics instead of the usual budgetary funding that just was enough for us to get by. Some of you in the past called such funding habits "just enough funding to keep NT athletics on life support."

I think most would agree that when any key NCAA D1-A college administrator does not have intercollegiate varsity athletics on his or (her) personal front-burner of importance and their believing without a shadow of a doubt (and not just the lip-service routine) that "college athletics "IS" the picture window of a university that many view our university"; anyway, we have found in the past even at UNT that sometimes such a "non interest in athletics" mode by previous NT leaders made it tougher than nails for Mean Green athletics to make any significant headway.

For certain its known that Lee Jackson has already said he is not that gung-ho about athletics (which is not so bad a thing for him to admit) and L.J. was even supposed to have said that he also would not stand in the way of its progress at UNT-Denton; but didn't "logo-gate" tell us a few things about what more "non-UNT graduated" leaders can do to our school without requesting from hardly anyone I know on this forum any semblance of feedback from those who have actually spent the big bucks on items that would have our new UNT brandings? One from the branding commitee even sent (by mistake) an email that ended up on the computer of one of this board's regular posters with that email saying: "We don't have to listen to anything that group has to say?" Well...............might such an attitude as that one day manifest itself when it comes to making decisions on what kind of future NT athletics should have at UNT-Denton with such decisions being made (once again) from non-UNT graduated leaders (for the most part) who won't be around to see (or really give a damn) as to what their decisions hath wrought for the rest of us who will be around to care?

Also, don't we already have some fairly strong hints of what losing a pro-UNT athletics president and being replaced by new UNT administrators who are not-so-pro athletics seems to be doing and with one particular and fairly large indicator such as this question proposes: Just what did happen to UNT's plans for a new football stadium out at Eagle Point Campus? Why aren't UNT's key fund-raisers being told from the top to put that on their fund-raising top priority list (since after all, the new football stadium has already been made public from campus leaders and even a virtual tour video of a such a new football stadium which had been produced)?

Edited July 25, 2006 by PlummMeanGreen