Recruiting Note & Stadium Comments

UNTFan23 · June 16, 2008

From what I've read about the atmosphere now though, I think that the fee could pass, if properly explained and publicized - even if it really is for a new stadium.

If there are drawings and maybe even a model of the proposed stadium, it would give students the impression that the planning is done, all that is needed is the funding and we can start moving dirt.

Effective communication will be key.

untbowler · June 16, 2008

Rick,
You forgot this one:
SGA OKs athletics fee

Got a kick out of reading the article and seeing that the FMLA was strongly opposed to it even though it would be helping the ladies. :blink:

Quoner · June 16, 2008

If there are drawings and maybe even a model of the proposed stadium, it would give students the impression that the planning is done, all that is needed is the funding and we can start moving dirt.
Effective communication will be key.

T-shirts are also the key to legislation.

I know I still have my Brady Bill underoos from when I was a kid.

UNTflyer · June 16, 2008

Each member who voted no with rights said they personally supported the fee, but chose to vote against it because of information and opinions received from students outside the senate.
Griffis said he was very proud of the senate members who put aside their personal beliefs to vote in a way that was more representative of the students.

Ridiculous. Leaders lead. They don't allow public opinion to sway them.

UNTflyer · June 16, 2008

It is a very tough call sometimes. As an elected representative, you are elected to represent. And yet, sometimes, you must do unpopular things that you believe to be in the best interest of your constituents. As the Senators found out, sometimes you get kicked out of office for doing so.
Personally, I was one of those that voted no on the legislation, but only after I was 100% sure it had the votes to pass. By being a sneaky bastard, I was able to help get the legislation passed while still voting the direct wishes of my constituents.

Hell, that's just good politics on your part.

Green Mean · June 16, 2008

Hell, that's just good politics on your part.

It is good politics but you are still elected by the people to represent the people

UNTflyer · June 16, 2008

It is good politics but you are still elected by the people to represent the people

True. Representing the people, I'm afraid, is misunderstood by the public. Our Congressmen are supposed to vote their beliefs, not be persuaded by mob rule. We're a Republic, an indirect democracy.

I would hope our Student Senate would work in the same way.

FirefightnRick · June 16, 2008

I tried posting as many of those reports as I could, trying to show the new folks here who were not involved back then what it was like. And school spirit was high at that time. Every had just come back from our first N.O. Bowl and people were on cloud nine with what the future held. That is why the AD dept pushed for it, and why so many here on GMG.com elected to put up money for ad space. But it turned out to be a horrible idea because as soon as the Bruce Hall folks got wind of it, it was done. I remember Stebo and MeanRob and Adler and several others here trying to tell everyone to let it lie low, and not promote it. He was right. I like the article about the Daily's staff supporting the fee, yet they point out how it's gonna cost you. Pretty funny. Still not sure what side of the road they were on about it?

Rick

Censored by Laurie · June 16, 2008

True. Representing the people, I'm afraid, is misunderstood by the public. Our Congressmen are supposed to vote their beliefs, not be persuaded by mob rule. We're a Republic, an indirect democracy.
I would hope our Student Senate would work in the same way.

'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'

'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'

untjim1995 · June 16, 2008

I am of the belief that the BOR should impose a fee to go directly to athletics and that if the students don't like it, then they should go to UTD or UTA. I also believe that we need to get away from this "We are the Best Value University for your money in the world!" message that we like to portray. So, with that being said, does anyone else think that if a student body doesn't want to fund a stadium or doesn't want to really attend athletic events, then maybe that tells us more about what we should be preparing ourselves to deal with concerning our overall athletic department and the future of specifically football? Maybe a better way to put it is like this: If we have to depend on a vote and the students continue to vote it down, how much longer can we stay afloat in Division I-A (FBS) if we continue to play at Fouts in the SBC? I am of the belief that if we don't have a new stadium by 2013, we will no longer be able to compete with the other D-1A schools and will either drop back down to FCS (kiss of death) or have the program fold away (instant death) at some point over the next decade or so. But if it what the overwhelming number of students/alumni/Denton residents want, then I don't know if this is a winnable proposition. All said, I hope that I never see the day that we don't have an FBS team again.

UNTflyer · June 16, 2008

I am of the belief that the BOR should impose a fee to go directly to athletics and that if the students don't like it, then they should go to UTD or UTA.

Can't. Illegal. You have to write your legislators and ask them to change the law.

hickoryhouse · June 16, 2008

I tried posting as many of those reports as I could, trying to show the new folks here who were not involved back then what it was like. And school spirit was high at that time. Every had just come back from our first N.O. Bowl and people were on cloud nine with what the future held. That is why the AD dept pushed for it, and why so many here on GMG.com elected to put up money for ad space. But it turned out to be a horrible idea because as soon as the Bruce Hall folks got wind of it, it was done. I remember Stebo and MeanRob and Adler and several others here trying to tell everyone to let it lie low, and not promote it. He was right. I like the article about the Daily's staff supporting the fee, yet they point out how it's gonna cost you. Pretty funny. Still not sure what side of the road they were on about it?
Rick

I guess I don't understand why bruce hall is being villified on this. I lived there during this time and I voted for the fees. It seems to me that there is alot of blame being passed around and shoved onto Bruce and onto the Music School. Bruce Hall alone does not have the power to sway the vote. And even if it did that just means that the opponents of the fee found a greater outlet for it's views and did a better job getting those people out to vote. The other residence halls had the exact same opportunity, as did the greek system to get their views across. What it boiled down to is that the people that were against the fee were more against it than the people that were for the fee were for it!

Maybe this time we can change that, but the last time was not sabotaged by a rouge residence hall, they ust did a better job of expressing their disagreement with the idea being voted upon.

Censored by Laurie · June 16, 2008

I guess I don't understand why bruce hall is being villified on this. I lived there during this time and I voted for the fees. It seems to me that there is alot of blame being passed around and shoved onto Bruce and onto the Music School. Bruce Hall alone does not have the power to sway the vote. And even if it did that just means that the opponents of the fee found a greater outlet for it's views and did a better job getting those people out to vote. The other residence halls had the exact same opportunity, as did the greek system to get their views across. What it boiled down to is that the people that were against the fee were more against it than the people that were for the fee were for it!
Maybe this time we can change that, but the last time was not sabotaged by a rouge residence hall, they ust did a better job of expressing their disagreement with the idea being voted upon.

Shh...you're emboldening the different people.

Green Mean · June 16, 2008

I am of the belief that the BOR should impose a fee to go directly to athletics and that if the students don't like it, then they should go to UTD or UTA..

What does UTD or UTA have anything to do with this? They are both marvelous schools with excellent programs. Infact I believe UTD's tuition is a little higher than UNT's. I am not sure about UTA's tho.

emmitt01 · June 16, 2008

Maybe this time we can change that, but the last time was not sabotaged by a rouge residence hall, they ust did a better job of expressing their disagreement with the idea being voted upon.

So you're saying Bruce is full of commies or just that the hall is painted a reddish color?

hickoryhouse · June 16, 2008

So you're saying Bruce is full of commies or just that the hall is painted a reddish color?

the brick is kinda reddish.... no? doesn't work.... maybe commies then

untgirl04 · June 16, 2008

I guess I don't understand why bruce hall is being villified on this. I lived there during this time and I voted for the fees. It seems to me that there is alot of blame being passed around and shoved onto Bruce and onto the Music School. Bruce Hall alone does not have the power to sway the vote. And even if it did that just means that the opponents of the fee found a greater outlet for it's views and did a better job getting those people out to vote. The other residence halls had the exact same opportunity, as did the greek system to get their views across. What it boiled down to is that the people that were against the fee were more against it than the people that were for the fee were for it!
Maybe this time we can change that, but the last time was not sabotaged by a rouge residence hall, they ust did a better job of expressing their disagreement with the idea being voted upon.

I didn't mean to imply that Bruce Hall and all of the School of Music were the masterminds behind the failure. I had several good friends at Bruce and in the SOM who did vote for the fee. However, those people seemed to be a lot quieter than the vocal group who vehemently protested the fee. As you said, they did a better job of expressing their displeasure, and I think were more convincing in getting others do vote the same.

UNTflyer · June 16, 2008

I think this will be different... we have to have the new stadium and the land north of I-35E is needed.

emmitt01 · June 16, 2008

I didn't mean to imply that Bruce Hall and all of the School of Music were the masterminds behind the failure. I had several good friends at Bruce and in the SOM who did vote for the fee. However, those people seemed to be a lot quieter than the vocal group who vehemently protested the fee. As you said, they did a better job of expressing their displeasure, and I think were more convincing in getting others do vote the same.

They were also more convincing in making others believe that the fee was for a stadium (a blatant lie) and not for Title Nine compliance.

foutsrouts · June 16, 2008

Just an off the wall thought which may have been mentioned before, but is it possible that we have a few commercial acres west of I-35 which could be sold off to help jumpstart this thing? This project simply has to happen, and I'm thinking that we need to consider ALL alternatives available in addition to student fees to get this thing rolling ASAP. Anyone with extensive knowledge of the site and its value have any comments?

trud1966 · June 16, 2008

Just an off the wall thought which may have been mentioned before, but is it possible that we have a few commercial acres west of I-35 which could be sold off to help jumpstart this thing? This project simply has to happen, and I'm thinking that we need to consider ALL alternatives available in addition to student fees to get this thing rolling ASAP. Anyone with extensive knowledge of the site and its value have any comments?

Yeah, I thought about that also. When you look at the long term masterplan ( which is somone will be kind enough to post on here if they have it thanks in advance) there's alot of frontage property that will remain North of the new Stadium, basically between the stadium and 35. At first glance, this stuff looks like great property that could be sold off as commecial, retail/restaurant pad sites. And it would be a great compliment to the stadium right behind it. All the fans would pour onto these sites after the games, etc. looks like a no-brainer. However, the thing everyone has to remember is that all of that land falls a HUGE distance in elevation from 35 down all the way down to the athletic buidling. Just eye-balling it, it looks like it drops 35-40 feet in elevation. So in order to put alot of restaurants/retail on those frontage sites would require a vast amount of some serious site work, including alot of retaining walls to accommodate big change in elevation. Not to say it cant be done. Anything can be done, but that cost passed along to the pad sites will REALLY drive the cost up per square foot, which might make selling those sites very difficult. Can someone post that image on here of the masterplan?