League Expansions (off The Frog Board)

[UNTLifer]

If the system wasnt so regulated as far as parties go then more people would want to join the greek system. You get one strike and then you get kicked off campus for 5 years. I was an SAE when we got kicked off a few years ago.

Sorry this turned into more of a vent session...

Sorry, but I disagree with a lot of your post, but the above struck me as odd considering why the SAE's were kick off campus and it wasn't for throwing a party.

[GreenBat]

If it's all the same, I'd prefer we distance ourselves from all things relating to Rutgers at the moment.

[Baby Arm!]

I would not say Houston is anymore of a commuter school than UT is and UT is def. NOT a commuter school. I'm from Austin and grew up there.

Actually North Texas has a higher percentage of its students living on campus than UT.

The commuter school label is all perception.

[AJR2010OX]

The greek scene is improving. We just added Delta Gamma as a sorority, and in the past 2 years have added Theta Chi (my fraternity) and Kappa Alpha Order, and I'm sure we're looking to bring the Pikes, SAE, and hopefully Sammy back on campus. Kappa Delta Sorority is also coming in 2009.

We also have a new SGA prez and vice prez who are both pro athletics and pro greek (the vice prez posts on the boards if you havent noticed). Our scene will change.

Athletics is on the rise. It is shown that the better the athletic team (fball and bball wise), the better the weekend parties/tailgates/amount of money the school receives. (see UT A&M Tech Ohio State Florida Louisville)

Once again, give it time. San Marcos just happens to also be the fastest growing area in the nation (Austin-San marcos area). I say 4-5 years and youll like it. Hopefully I will be graduated by then.

Actually North Texas has a higher percentage of its students living on campus than UT.

The commuter school label is all perception.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

Actually North Texas has a higher percentage of its students living on campus than UT.

The commuter school label is all perception.

You are right; but Texas is also considered a commuter school.

I can's find many that rate universities Commuter or Residential but one that does is College Board (see any individual figures at collegeboard.com) Hut they are inconsistent in two cases. I looked at what will be the 9 football playing members of the Sun Belt, the 12 members of the Big 12, and the remainder of the 1-A Texas schools and here is what I found:

The following were classified Residentialwith the percentage of undergraduates living in campus housing:

Rice 69%

Nebraska 45%

SMU 45%

TCU 43%

Oklahoma State 38%

Iowa State 37%

Missouri 37%

Baylor 32%

Oklahoma 28%

Colorado 26%

Troy 26%

Texas A&M 25%

The rest were classified as Commuter with their percentage living in campus housing:

Western Kentucky 32%

Kansas State 27%

Texas Tech 24%

Arkansas State 23%

Kansas 22%

North Texas 21%

Texas 19%

Louisiana-Monroe 15%

Louisiana-Lafayette 12%

Florida International 12$

Middle Tennessee 12%

Houston 7%

Florida Atlantic 4%

UTEP NR

It appears that they divided Residential/Commuter at 25%. If so they mistakenly classified Western Kentucky and Kansas State; both should have been Residential.

I have seen somewhere that UTEP has no dorms except that there may be one to house athletes.

[ShopMeanGreen]

I guess I don't understand the whole commuter school thing then...If Tech is a commuter school it only means there aren't enough dorm rooms. No way students drive more than across town. If all this is true the commuter label doesn't really mean anything. Would seem the larger schools would all be commuter and the small schools are residential because fewer student need to live on campus to make the % right.

[Daddy Dumpsalot]

Sorry, but I disagree with a lot of your post, but the above struck me as odd considering why the SAE's were kick off campus and it wasn't for throwing a party.

If you know why we were kicked off campus please tell...

[UNTLifer]

Check you PM

[gangrene]

Ok, I was going to post a response to the commuter vs. residential stats but I decided why bother? The stats don't really make any sense and I'm sure everyone agrees.

However, I think the bigger question is how does being labeled a commuter school affect UNT? Whether or not we are still a commuter school, that perception and label is still firmly attached to North Texas. If we are a commuter school, what are the implications on our football program? The theory is that our student attendance is substantially less than it would be if we had more students living on campus.

So, according to that theory, we'll never be able to increase our student attendance without additional campus housing and attracting more students that want to live on campus. I just don't buy that. Maybe that would happen if we increased campus housing AND moved the entire university to some isolated location like Lufkin or San Angelo. In that scenario, our student body would be too far to go home for the weekend, too far from the entertainment options of a large city and thus, stuck with nothing to do except attend the football game on Saturday. Our student enrollment is a direct reflection of the university's location. If we were located in some remote town, our enrollment would be no where close to what it is today. Many of our students attend UNT because they don't want to stray too far from home or are simply unable to do so because of employment commitments. I've heard stupid comments like "UNT students are just too scared to move too far from Mom and Dad" and "UNT is like high school because most students still live at home" etc, etc. Every student has his/her own reasons for attending UNT, but the close proximity to DFW is a factor for almost everyone. If UNT was not so close to DFW, our enrollment would likely be comparable to Texas State or SFA, regardless of our on campus housing capacity. Our student attendance at football games is poor simply because the DFW metroplex has so many entertainment options and becaue the product and (Fouts Field) competition have not been stellar.

But our predicament is not so dissimilar from UT. There are many, many things to do in and around the Austin/San Antonio/San Marcos area, especially in September when it's still warm. UT sells out football games every year because UT football is THE thing to do on Saturdays. Alumni and casual fans routinely drive from Houston, Dallas and San Antonio to attend UT football games. Fans are willing to drive the distance because the product is top-notch.

UNT will never duplicate the supply and demand that exists at UT, but we don't have to do that. We're not located 2 1/2 hours from DFW and we don't have 80K+ seats to sell. We need to give UNT alumni and casual fans a reason to spend their Saturdays in Denton. A 45 to 60-minute drive should not be a factor, but we have to give people a good reason to invest their time and make that drive if we expect to sell out a 30-40K stadium on a consistent basis. It all starts with the product and everything else must be built around that. If we have a winning football program (and against quality opponents in Denton), the rest of the cards should fall into place. A new stadium and marketing program to create ticket demand are both essential ingredients to getting our football program where we all want it to be. If we continue to create a fun and exciting environment for students and alumni, coupled with on-field success, this program will soar to new heights.

Still, I think it's silly to think we'll ever be invited to join the Big XII in the next 20 years, certainly not a direct leap from the SBC.

[Eagle1855]

Still, I think it's silly to think we'll ever be invited to join the Big XII in the next 20 years, certainly not a direct leap from the SBC.

It's not just silly, it's ABSURD. The Big 12 would have ZERO interest in having a school 30 miles from one of the hottest recruiting beds in the nation (which is part of the reason you will never see UH in the big 12 either). They don't need the exposure in either market, and schools like KU, K-State, and Ok State dont want the competition.

C-USA is a very real possibility in the next couple years, and we should set our sights on that (and I think RV is doing that already).

And before everyone posts about the SBC and its record against C-USA, please know that I dont CARE if the Sun Belt is improving... I dont care at ALL. I would rather go watch us play Rice, SMU, UTEP, So Miss, and Houston than ANY belt school and I think if you asked the average college football fan (the people you want to take interest in our program to help fill up the new stadium), you will get the same sentiment.

Edited April 12, 2007 by Eagle1855

[TIgreen01]

It's not just silly, it's ABSURD. The Big 12 would have ZERO interest in having a school 30 miles from one of the hottest recruiting beds in the nation (which is part of the reason you will never see UH in the big 12 either). They don't need the exposure in either market, and schools like KU, K-State, and Ok State dont want the competition.

C-USA is a very real possibility in the next couple years, and we should set our sights on that (and I think RV is doing that already).

And before everyone posts about the SBC and its record against C-USA, please know that I dont CARE if the Sun Belt is improving... I dont care at ALL. I would rather go watch us play Rice, SMU, UTEP, So Miss, and Houston than ANY belt school and I think if you asked the average college football fan (the people you want to take interest in our program to help fill up the new stadium), you will get the same sentiment.

I'm going to steal a page from SE66's handbook here:

Let some more years of toiling in anonymity run their course for all of the schools you mentioned. You wouldn't give 2 craps to go see SMU or Rice if they didn't have the rich tradition behind them b/c you wouldn't have heard of them if all you had to go on was the past 15 years. Anyone who benefitted from the old SWC and now finds themselves struggling to survive is at risk of being passed up by us.

Personally, I think we're going to get the best of all worlds as the US population shifts more to the south. Dallas is going to continue to grow, which means that Denton will also. With the increase in population, we'll have to cap our enrollment at some point--which will trigger us accepting only the more "traditional" type students, who tend to throw themselves into the college scene more than commuters. Couple that with the fact that we're getting more and more exposure (athletically) each and every year and things will eventually get where we are solidly categorized in that mid-major/big school category that everyone covets. Obviously, all speculation...but the US Census backs up the population shift.

Edited April 12, 2007 by TIgreen01

[Eagle1855]

I'm going to steal a page from SE66's handbook here:

Let some more years of toiling in anonymity run their course for all of the schools you mentioned. You wouldn't give 2 craps to go see SMU or Rice if they didn't have the rich tradition behind them b/c you wouldn't have heard of them if all you had to go on was the past 15 years. Anyone who benefitted from the old SWC and now finds themselves struggling to survive is at risk of being passed up by us.

Personally, I think we're going to get the best of all worlds as the US population shifts more to the south. Dallas is going to continue to grow, which means that Denton will also. With the increase in population, we'll have to cap our enrollment at some point--which will trigger us accepting only the more "traditional" type students, who tend to throw themselves into the college scene more than commuters. Couple that with the fact that we're getting more and more exposure (athletically) each and every year and things will eventually get where we are solidly categorized in that mid-major/big school category that everyone covets. Obviously, all speculation...but the US Census backs up the population shift.

The same thing is happening at UH and in Houston as well. All the C-USA schools I listed are also in the south, and should therefore benefit from this migration so I dont really see your point.

If you can find one college football fan that didnt go to school at a Sun Belt school that would rather go see UNT play ULL, ULM, MTSU, or FIU over Southern Miss or UTEP, I will be shocked. And neither of those schools were in the SWC. Ever.

[NT80]

And before everyone posts about the SBC and its record against C-USA, please know that I dont CARE if the Sun Belt is improving... I dont care at ALL. I would rather go watch us play Rice, SMU, UTEP, So Miss, and Houston than ANY belt school and I think if you asked the average college football fan (the people you want to take interest in our program to help fill up the new stadium), you will get the same sentiment.

Agree with that. If you look at Fouts top attendance games it will also reflect this. We need in CUSA ASAP.

[TIgreen01]

The same thing is happening at UH and in Houston as well. All the C-USA schools I listed are also in the south, and should therefore benefit from this migration so I dont really see your point.

My point is that SMU/Rice are already at a level (academically) where they aren't going to gain anything, school spirit wise, by increasing entrance requirements. UTEP is in BFE. Houston stands to get the same benefit we do. Southern Miss? No idea...they are close to New Orleans, but I hardly think that area is going to get a huge population boom after Katrina (who knows?). My first pass at that last post included exclusions for Houston, but I took it out b/c they were in the old SWC and the last time we played them at Fouts they didn't bring diddly-poo, attendance wise. I thought the contest would garner more attention than it did....but they just don't travel well and aren't at the level where everyone pays attention to them all the time anymore. Frankly, I'd be more excited for a game between Troy/MTSU than I would be for a game with UH.

If you can find one college football fan that didnt go to school at a Sun Belt school that would rather go see UNT play ULL, ULM, MTSU, or FIU over Southern Miss or UTEP, I will be shocked. And neither of those schools were in the SWC. Ever.

Yep, you're right on there. I can't argue that Southern Miss, Memphis, UH, UTEP and Marshall all have decent name recognition. Give Troy and MTSU a couple more seasons to upset some BCS teams and you've got the same kind of buzz around them as you do Southern Miss or Marshall. Don't get me wrong, right now the Sun Belt can't compete for fan interest like CUSA can...but we're not getting into that conference for at least 3-4 more years. A lot can happen in that amount of time.

[Daddy Dumpsalot]

Frankly, I'd be more excited for a game between Troy/MTSU than I would be for a game with UH.

Troy and MTSWho? Perhaps youre different from the rest of the people. Remember why MOST people watch football games, they watch them because they have heard of the school, not because they like the offense or defense the school runs. Think about it, 85% of our fans dont come to the games to see our new spread offense, they come when we play a team that they have heard of before...thats it. The other 15% is where anyone who would rather see Troy/MTSWho play than some nationally recognized team would fall. If you ask a girl...'are you coming to the game' she doesnt ask 'is todd dodge running that new offense' or 'oh yeah arent we going back to 4-3 defense' no she simply says 'um...who do we play'. If our answer is a school that she has heard of before, then she will come.

[TIgreen01]

Troy and MTSWho? Perhaps youre different from the rest of the people. Remember why MOST people watch football games, they watch them because they have heard of the school, not because they like the offense or defense the school runs. Think about it, 85% of our fans dont come to the games to see our new spread offense, they come when we play a team that they have heard of before...thats it. The other 15% is where anyone who would rather see Troy/MTSWho play than some nationally recognized team would fall. If you ask a girl...'are you coming to the game' she doesnt ask 'is todd dodge running that new offense' or 'oh yeah arent we going back to 4-3 defense' no she simply says 'um...who do we play'. If our answer is a school that she has heard of before, then she will come.

Give Troy and MTSU a couple more seasons to upset some BCS teams and you've got the same kind of buzz around them

I just cant see this happening, maybe I'm a pessimist but I just cant see this happening and even if is did I dont see this helping out UNT.

Again, we are not getting out of the Sun Belt anytime soon...so why the griping?? My original point was that the schools you covet playing right now may not be all that great in a few years...ie, by the time the next round of realignment occurs. Besides, about all we can do now is play these schools in OOC and RV has been doing a pretty decent job scheduling them. We've had CUSA teams coming to Fouts the last 2 years and Navy this year....

If you think Troy, MTSU or us pulling a Boise St wouldn't help the rest of the conference....well, I don't know what to tell you. I'm pretty sure that every team in the WAC has their next home game with BSU circled as having the potential to draw their biggest crowd of the season....

[untjim1995]

Agree with that. If you look at Fouts top attendance games it will also reflect this. We need in CUSA ASAP.

I don't often reply to things on this board, but I am interested to hear your answer as to how UNT can get into CUSA when SMU has zero interest in us being in there and apparently has the ability to keep us blacklisted. I do agree with you that it would be a perfect fit for us, but I just don't think it is realistic. I think the idea of building a terrific new stadium that is state-of-the art for D-IA and see if we could join TCU in the MWC would be perfect, but I also realize that this is a long ways away, too. Just curious to hear your reply.

[Daddy Dumpsalot]

how UNT can get into CUSA when SMU has zero interest in us being in there and apparently has the ability to keep us blacklisted.

Is this correct?

[SAGreenFan]

Is this correct?

Ooooh you have just opened up an UGLY can of worms...

Edited April 12, 2007 by SAGreenFan

[Daddy Dumpsalot]

Ooooh you have just opened up an UGLY can of worms...

maybe we should let SMU win this year so that when the time comes they wont hate us so much

[untjim1995]

maybe we should let SMU win this year so that when the time comes they wont hate us so much

From the very little that I know--granted, mostly heresay--but I have always heard that SMu was much more interested in having La Tech as a member of CUSA than UNT. But, in the end, neither made it. But, as you can imagine, La Tech wants in and if they have some built-in help...well that doesn't seem to hwlp our chances much. I still think it is amazing that this very little school, SMU, that has nothing to show for football in the last 20 years has enough pull to do this, but they managed to help keep us out of the old SWC when we could have been something special.

I'm still curious to hear what ideas we could use to get into CUSA, though. It would be a great fit.

[CMJ]

Didn''t we play Houston back in '98ish to a crowd of about 18K? I don't even think that was our biggest crowd of the season.

[MCMLXXX]

I heard we were given a "to do" list for next time. CUSA apparently liked our future Eagle Point plans back then. I believe someone said it mentioned the need for more overall average attendance in football and men's basketball, a new football facility, and adding baseball....things we all know already. Location, size, academics, everything else was OK. Although UTEP had no baseball and eastern CUSA members weren't crazy about the long travel, they beat us mainly because they were in the 40/10 club back then (avg. 40K in football and 10K in basketball). Plus they are on the SWA chart (a Southwest Airlines destination).

We were the second choice behind UTEP for CUSA last time as I posted on the Mean Green Athletics site previously. I attached NT80's response to my post. SMU is not the stumbling block.

[DeepGreen]

From the very little that I know--granted, mostly heresay--but I have always heard that SMu was much more interested in having La Tech as a member of CUSA than UNT. But, in the end, neither made it. But, as you can imagine, La Tech wants in and if they have some built-in help...well that doesn't seem to hwlp our chances much. I still think it is amazing that this very little school, SMU, that has nothing to show for football in the last 20 years has enough pull to do this, but they managed to help keep us out of the old SWC when we could have been something special.

I'm still curious to hear what ideas we could use to get into CUSA, though. It would be a great fit.

If the AD thinks SMU is the cause for all things that don't go our way, then it's time the Administration, AD, and BOR starts "smoozing" the folks on the hill. We need make them our best friends. Do a selling job on them.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

From the very little that I know--granted, mostly heresay--but I have always heard that SMu was much more interested in having La Tech as a member of CUSA than UNT. But, in the end, neither made it. But, as you can imagine, La Tech wants in and if they have some built-in help...well that doesn't seem to hwlp our chances much. I still think it is amazing that this very little school, SMU, that has nothing to show for football in the last 20 years has enough pull to do this, but they managed to help keep us out of the old SWC when we could have been something special.

I'm still curious to hear what ideas we could use to get into CUSA, though. It would be a great fit.

SMU alone could not have kept us out of either the SWC or CUSA. They had to have help if either is true. It took three against to keep us from the SWC. Assuming SMU was one, who were the other two?

It is a known that SMU supported La Tech for the remaining CUSA slot. Their stated reason was that LT was a former conference mate. We don't know for sure whether their support was pro La Tech or anti North Texas and we may never know. But their support still didn't land Louisiana Tech in CUSA. That shows that can't do it alone.

As long as our hatred for SMU exists, I don't think that we'll ever have their help in getting in CUSA. If that is ever to happen we will need a lot of support. We don't have it and are not developing it.

Who would be our CUSA sponson? Unless we could get Southern Miss, I think that we are SOL. There are maybe two or three more that might get our vote if we had a new stadium and a couple of years of winning but I doubt that any would try to convince others to vote for us. On the other hand, is it possible that SMU could garner enough support to keep us out? We know that they are friends with Tulane, probably Rice and maybe Tulsa. I'm very skeptical that we could count on Houston. And, with the eastern teams against anyone west of the Mississippi, we don't stand a Chinaman's chance.

As distasteful as it is to some, our best chance, as Deep so aptly put it, is to start smoozing SMU. Dr. Bataille is charming enough that I think that she could pull it off but we'd have to muzzle about a dozen of our best alumni.

Edited April 13, 2007 by GrayEagleOne