Who's Holding Us Back?

meangreenbob · July 10, 2008

I cannot find any reason why UNT should not be equal to or better than the other 9 D1A Texas schools in both academics and athletics. However,

I can certainly list many reasons why we should.

So, who is holding us back? Is it sly, manipulative politicians in Austin with ties to Tech, Houston, maybe SMU or Baylor who literally fear what might happen to their schools pool of resources and their school's image & standings should UNT ever reach it's potential?

Or are we ourselves the guilty ones. Could it be a combination of both or something totally different? Something doesn't make since, does it? Aren't all of you getting sick and tired of forever watching our beloved University wallow in mediocrity? Don't you feel like we're constantly gasping for our next breath of air? Why? Can anyone logically justify why The University of North Texas continues to trip, stumble and fall?

I personally believe that the Gene Stallings report concerning our return to D1A football and more specifically the suggestion that we keep playing at Fouts Field set the bar "so low" that we are still paying for it today. Who knows, maybe the report was altered at Dr. Hurley's request but one thing is for sure and that is this; our return to D1A was a half-hearted effort at best. Had we made building a new stadium our main focus back in the early nineties we would be playing in CUSA today! Maybe even a better conference.

I could go on and on but it won't do any good.

I believe we are fortunate to have Rick Villarreal and Coach Dodge on our side.

Only the announcement of a new state of the art stadium will convince me that UNT and it's leaders are serious about it's football program and athletics overall.

UNTflyer · July 10, 2008

It's kind of like trying to pin down one single cause for high oil prices.

There are so many factors holding us back... years of mediocre fandom, bad facilities, limited funding, lack of leadership and vision, no helmet stickers...

SilverEagle · July 10, 2008

I couldn't say who is currently holding us back. Here is a quick overview of our history, and those more knowledgable can fill in the "rest of the story".

1. The administration at North Texas as far back as Dr. Bruce (look up some of his correspondence to other school presidents in "The story of North Texas") regarded sports as just another of the social experiences at North Texas. No more or less important than participation in the spanish club etc.

2. For decades our primary educational product has been teachers. Not the most monied of alumni. Plus, our administration just wanted North Texas to be the "best little teachers college in Texas".

3. When we had notable success in the mid-to-late 60's the attitude of both the coaching staff (O. Mitchell) and the school President (Dr. Matthews) was that we didn't need to raise any additional funds (a mean green club) because the football team operated within the budget that was given to them. And having a fund raising organization would only invite people to become involved who might try to dictate to the administration how the athletic department should be run. I don't know how Rod Rust felt about the issue. Shortly after Rod Rust was fired (after a 1-10 season) there was a student referendum to drop football......it barely failed. Right after that Hayden Fry was hired.

4. When we did finally start trying to join the modern era under Hayden Fry, my guess is that he ran into a lot of resistance from the administration who had no concept of the old adage "you have to spend money to make money". This was in addition to fighting the general attitude in Texas that North Texas was a little school, both in program size, and it's attitude about itself.

5. After Hayden Fry left, the "Old nesters" with their old attitudes took back over, and any sort of progress toward becoming a bigger program got shut down. Since then inertia has been a very powerful force regarding athletics until Rick V took over. But even at that, I suspect that Rick V. has had to negotiate a lot of attitudinal land mines from the old days.

If we want to keep digging ourselves out of this mess, we ( both students and alumni) must do as Adler suggests. We must ALWAYS regard our University as a GREAT UNIVERSITY,....... and conduct ourselves accordingly.

the real grad88 · July 10, 2008

The real causes are history and timing. Had UNT been in the center of the explosive growth we are now enjoying back in the 70s, we would be one of the leading universities in the nation right now...athletically speaking. In Texas it would be UT, A&M and UNT in the same breath. We would be in the Big XII right now instead of Baylor.

The fact is the timing was off. When we made our push to join the SWC, we were a sleepy little college in a sleepy little town. Our officials saw UNT in a very different light...the past...not the future. Had we got into the SWC, everything would have changed in a hurry! We would have a 70K seat stadium right now, and probably 50K in enrollment...given recent growth. As I said, we would be in the Big XII, know doubt.

The thing UNT needs to hope for is another future shift in alignments. I think it will happen. We just have to be patient. Old egos die hard, but they do die...just like history fades into the past. When new alignment talks happen, most people involved won't hold the history in their mind that they once did. We will be included in the new mix...whenever that occurs.

The deal is: We will probably never rise as high as we could have had we done so many years earlier. That is water under the bridge. I would be happy in a good midmajor, regional conference with schools our alums care about playing. We all know who those schools are.

KRAM1 · July 10, 2008

Most of this is "old stuff" and of no consequence going forward. We can dwell on the past and the mistakes made, or we can look to what i believe to be a very bright future indeed. I guess GMG.com is like the "mainstream media" in some respects in that positive news and "good news" just doesn't "sell".

Fo me, the past is the past...can't do anything about that...let's try to have some impact on the things we can change...like:

1) Mean Green Club Memberships

2) Alumni Assoc. (Exes) Memberships

3) Scholarship donations

4) Facilities donations

5) Ticket sales

6) Attendance levels (far different than ticket sales)

7) Positive comments in public about UNT (overall...not just athletics)

8) Getting personally involved in UNT organizations and programs

9) Positive thought and comments regarding UNT on GMG.com (don't ever think that only the Mean Green Nation is reading what is written here)

10) Support of our coaches and administrators, professors, students, etc., etc.

If we, who claim to be members of the MEAN GREEN NATION, would look to those 10 items, I do think we could help move things along (including the new stadium) much faster.

GO MEAN GREEN! BUY SEASON TICKETS! JOIN THE ALUMNI ASSOC. ! JOIN THE MEAN GREEN CLUB!

untjim1995 · July 10, 2008

Here is my take on all of this, in order of greatest party responsible for us being insignificant to most people that are college fans:

1.) The administration--this includes the BOR. This school cares about one main thing--being a great value. That is why teachers love us, musicians love us, and commuters love us. We're cheap. As Silver said, teachers don't make much money. If they don't feel connected to the university, then there is no giving back. The profs at the school adamently oppose athletics because they feel it takes away from academia.

2.) City of Denton--the residents of this city don't really care about the program like many other cities do of the local team. It could be done (look at the way Ft. Worth supports TCU or the way the city of Tulsa supports TU), but this town wants a sleepy college feel that is eclectic--not athletic.

3.) The entire student body and alumni base--By and large, most don't care that we suck at sports and received no points on the recent Sears Cup standings. In many cases, the students want to follow other bigger schools because it is more cool. This is understandable when UNT plays in the same conference as teams that are not like us at all and are far away--no one really cares about a matchup with Middle Tennessee, Louisiana-Monroe, or Florida International. All the while, Texas and A&M play each other, OU, Tech, Kansas, Nebraska, etc. who have big histories and big attachments to the history of the school. What attachments do the children of UNT alums have to the university from an athletic standpoint? None--even Fry's teams, which were great and deserved better, got little attention, little support, and no bowl recognition, which is why the history here stinks compared to the old SWC.

4.) The Old SWC--this conglomerate owned Texas--still does. Through government, media, and alums, they basically said to everyone else that you don't matter (UNT and UTEP). The alums of each of these schools still hate to play us--why is that? Because they either look at us as a tune-up game that will be a blowout or they feel like it is unwinnable situation for them. These are both true today. When Baylor got clobbered by us, many of their alums were asking a very good question to themselves--Why do we play them in Denton? What good do we get for beating them vs. getting beaten by them? If you ask many TCU fans, they will tell you point blank that they hate playing us for these reasons. Tech started scheduling SMU for local games--ask yourself why? SMU hasn't been within 10 points of them in their recent series with Tech.

5.) Fouts Field--self-explanatory.

As is the case with all of this, many of these are generalizations and their are certainly exceptions to each case. But folks, if our football program continues to go south over the next 5 years or so and we have no new stadium, it wouldn't be too big of a surprise to me to see the program dropped. Especially if Gretchen were to leave and got replaced by another Hurley-type. D-I football costs alot if done the right way--doing it the way we are right now is at best half-assed, IMHO. Ask yourself this question, if the students still won't vote on a fee, the BOR won't increase it (whether legal or not), and the team goes 2-10 again for the next couple of seasons, what do you think will happen?

untjim1995 · July 10, 2008

Most of this is "old stuff" and of no consequence going forward. We can dwell on the past and the mistakes made, or we can look to what i believe to be a very bright future indeed. I guess GMG.com is like the "mainstream media" in some respects in that positive news and "good news" just doesn't "sell".
Fo me, the past is the past...can't do anything about that...let's try to have some impact on the things we can change...like:
1) Mean Green Club Memberships
2) Alumni Assoc. (Exes) Memberships
3) Scholarship donations
4) Facilities donations
5) Ticket sales
6) Attendance levels (far different than ticket sales)
7) Positive comments in public about UNT (overall...not just athletics)
8) Getting personally involved in UNT organizations and programs
9) Positive thought and comments regarding UNT on GMG.com (don't ever think that only the Mean Green Nation is reading what is written here)
10) Support of our coaches and administrators, professors, students, etc., etc.
If we, who claim to be members of the MEAN GREEN NATION, would look to those 10 items, I do think we could help move things along (including the new stadium) much faster.
GO MEAN GREEN! BUY SEASON TICKETS! JOIN THE ALUMNI ASSOC. ! JOIN THE MEAN GREEN CLUB!

I agree with you on all of this--but the question of the post is what is holding us back? Ther are many answers there that deal with past, present, and future.

eagle37 · July 10, 2008

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greigns · July 10, 2008

I guess I have a more positive outlook on this. Even though our record didn't show it, I saw some really big improvements in the football program this past year from recent years. With the players we have coming in this year, we have every reason to expect see more tangible improvements that actually translate to some immediate Ws and a whole bunch of Ws down the road as the pieces fall into place. We have a potential superstar coming in at quarterback, tons of fresh talent at WR and a whole host of new players with big potential that just need a little experience. We won't be able to utilize all of this talent right away, but down the road we'll see amazing things from Dodge and company. 2 or 3 years from now a new stadium and a possible switch to a better conference will seem much more feasible because with wins come attendance, with attendance comes money (ticket sales and donations) and with money comes facilities (a big part of what we need to be in a bigger conference).

Let's keep our heads up and see what happens!

GO MEAN GREEN!

NTPhiKap99 · July 10, 2008

One word HIPPIES.

UNTLifer · July 10, 2008

We have a potential superstar coming in at quarterback

We have a starter at quarterback with just as much superstar potential.

NT80 · July 11, 2008

I cannot find any reason why UNT should not be equal to or better than the other 9 D1A Texas schools in both academics and athletics.

Only difference in UNT and the other 9 D1A Texas schools:

1. Conference affiliation

Edited July 11, 2008 by NT80

July 11, 2008

This has been an excellent thread because virtually every poster has hit upon some elements of the truth about the University of North Texas.

In our history we've had two "pro-athletics" presidents or we wouldn't even be where we are today. Okay, 2.1. In my opinion, the best president that North Texas ever had was Joe McConnell, who was president from the late 30s to the early 50s. He took us from small college to the door of major college status. He also changed North Texas from a teachers college to a university. Ironically, in comes the .1, Carl Matthews, a much-maligned president who had some dated ideas, granted, but also continued Dr. McConnell's groundwork and got us into the Missouri Valley Conference. Dr. Matthews was a big basketball fan but didn't care much for football. The other "progressive" president was Jitter Nolen. He had some issues with academia but he was a huge booster of athletics. He was responsible for hiring Hayden Fry. So, the administration's attitude toward athletics has seen a few good moments but mostly has been passive, not active.

There are two elements of this problem that will likely decide how far the university will advance athletically. Those are the student body and the city of Denton.

Once the student body gets excited and participates in the support of our athletic teams, that energy will spill over to excite alumni and townspeople. Quite a bit of progress has been made with the student body, especially at freshmen oritentation. The shirt exchange program should be expanded and publicized. The student body should be lectured constantly on the advantages of a sound athletic program. Explain the needs and ask for their help. And do it again and again, year in and year out. Try to get as many students "mainstream" as possible. Build and maintain a school spirit. Each year it should get successively easier.

We often malign the city of Denton, and deservedly so. There are some Dentonites who are staunch supporters of UNT but there simply are not enough of them. Denton now has more than 110,000 people and the county approximately 600,000. Actively seek support of the citizenry. I've been around this program for more than 60 years now and I can't recall but one really agressive approach to get the citizens of Denton involved in UNT sports. That was the night that the Chamber of Commerce got behind the Baylor game and virtually sold out Fouts. Have at least one game per year where those with a Denton address get in for half price. Fly game day flags. Send an open letter to all Dentonites explaining the advantages of a striong athletic program and asking for their support. It's kind of like making a sale. At some point you have to ask for the order. We've never done that.

When the alumni see the interest by the student body, faculty, staff, and Dentonites, then many of them will renew their interest. Many like to be a part of a popular movement.

Lastly, and I know that this won't be popular with many of you, but NT80 is right; we need to be in another conference. I've nothing against the members of the Sun Belt Conference. They are fine folks. In time, some of them may become household words. But, other than us, Louisiana-Lafayette and Arkansas State, no one has more than ten years in Division 1-A. If you don't have longevity then you need instant success, such as Boise State, Utah and Hawaii have been able to accomplish. In spite of the cost, the WAC is looking better each day. If a split of the teams in CUSA and the Belt does not happen soon, any conference that is a step up might help advance the program and hence, pay for itself. We've drug our feet on changing conferences before.

Green Lantern · July 11, 2008

We publicize these things because they are each pieces of the puzzle. Value appeals to some. Diversity appeals to some. A good athletics program appeals to some. Others look for a good business school. You get the point.
On the fundraising front, UNT has been a late starter in aggressive fundraising. Really all public universities in Texas were. In the past, there wasn't a priority to raise money because the state provided funding. Even places like A&M were too aggresive in that area because they had other revenue sources. Now everyone chases after the dollars. It was a huge mistake on the part of UNT to be such a late comer to this type of fundraising. That history has an effect on our rankings and such. (Which is why I advocate a huge fundraising campaign to bring in new donors at low-levels).
And all the other reasons mentioned contribute to where we are at. But things are headed in a good direction. I look forward to continued improvement.

This is a really good point about the fundraising. UNT (percentage wise) is making huge strides in increasing dontations to the University, however, since we started this process so much later than many of our peer institutions, we are behind on that front. Things are definitely moving in a positive direction in regards to fundraising at North Texas, it (like many other things) just doesn't happen as quickly as many of us would like/hope.

untjim1995 · July 11, 2008

This has been an excellent thread because virtually every poster has hit upon some elements of the truth about the University of North Texas.
In our history we've had two "pro-athletics" presidents or we wouldn't even be where we are today. Okay, 2.1. In my opinion, the best president that North Texas ever had was Joe McConnell, who was president from the late 30s to the early 50s. He took us from small college to the door of major college status. He also changed North Texas from a teachers college to a university. Ironically, in comes the .1, Carl Matthews, a much-maligned president who had some dated ideas, granted, but also continued Dr. McConnell's groundwork and got us into the Missouri Valley Conference. Dr. Matthews was a big basketball fan but didn't care much for football. The other "progressive" president was Jitter Nolen. He had some issues with academia but he was a huge booster of athletics. He was responsible for hiring Hayden Fry. So, the administration's attitude toward athletics has seen a few good moments but mostly has been passive, not active.
There are two elements of this problem that will likely decide how far the university will advance athletically. Those are the student body and the city of Denton.
Once the student body gets excited and participates in the support of our athletic teams, that energy will spill over to excite alumni and townspeople. Quite a bit of progress has been made with the student body, especially at freshmen oritentation. The shirt exchange program should be expanded and publicized. The student body should be lectured constantly on the advantages of a sound athletic program. Explain the needs and ask for their help. And do it again and again, year in and year out. Try to get as many students "mainstream" as possible. Build and maintain a school spirit. Each year it should get successively easier.
We often malign the city of Denton, and deservedly so. There are some Dentonites who are staunch supporters of UNT but there simply are not enough of them. Denton now has more than 110,000 people and the county approximately 600,000. Actively seek support of the citizenry. I've been around this program for more than 60 years now and I can't recall but one really agressive approach to get the citizens of Denton involved in UNT sports. That was the night that the Chamber of Commerce got behind the Baylor game and virtually sold out Fouts. Have at least one game per year where those with a Denton address get in for half price. Fly game day flags. Send an open letter to all Dentonites explaining the advantages of a striong athletic program and asking for their support. It's kind of like making a sale. At some point you have to ask for the order. We've never done that.
When the alumni see the interest by the student body, faculty, staff, and Dentonites, then many of them will renew their interest. Many like to be a part of a popular movement.
Lastly, and I know that this won't be popular with many of you, but NT80 is right; we need to be in another conference. I've nothing against the members of the Sun Belt Conference. They are fine folks. In time, some of them may become household words. But, other than us, Louisiana-Lafayette and Arkansas State, no one has more than ten years in Division 1-A. If you don't have longevity then you need instant success, such as Boise State, Utah and Hawaii have been able to accomplish. In spite of the cost, the WAC is looking better each day. If a split of the teams in CUSA and the Belt does not happen soon, any conference that is a step up might help advance the program and hence, pay for itself. We've drug our feet on changing conferences before.

GEO,

In always enjoy reading your posts. They are always insightful. I am curious to hear about your views concerning Al Hurley, Norval Pohl, and now Gretchen in regards to athletics.

Greigns · July 11, 2008

We have a starter at quarterback with just as much superstar potential.

Not to try to argue with a lifer, but I don't agree with the "just as much" part of that statement. As far as I see it, Vizza is good (with a huge upside) and has potential for greatness but Dodge has potential for Heisman stature. I'm hoping Riley gets a redshirt so that we can get more years out of Vizza and not eat up too much out of RD's eligibility. That's just my humble opinion, feel free to disagree.

Greigns · July 11, 2008

Rice, UT, and A&M have much better academics than we do, period.

There are plenty of areas where UNT excells past A&M and even the other two. Music (by far the best in Texas), RTVF (again by far the best in texas), Business (competitive with any other program other than UT). Our counseling has a program in Play Therapy that is tops in the world, Environmental Ethics (the focus of Philosophy and Religion school here at UNT) is a top tier program, our English department was fantastic in my experience. Rice, UT and A&M might have better academics overall, but that's not true for everyone. The first three programs I listed are top-notch and they make up a huge portion of our school.

Quoner · July 11, 2008

There are plenty of areas where UNT excells past A&M and even the other two. Music (by far the best in Texas), RTVF (again by far the best in texas), Business (competitive with any other program other than UT). Our counseling has a program in Play Therapy that is tops in the world, Environmental Ethics (the focus of Philosophy and Religion school here at UNT) is a top tier program, our English department was fantastic in my experience. Rice, UT and A&M might have better academics overall, but that's not true for everyone. The first three programs I listed are top-notch and they make up a huge portion of our school.

I can tell the English dept. paid off - jk.

Just curious if you had any recent sourcing for those points to shoot down the naysayers. Music is a given, but curious on the business stats especially.

UNTFan23 · July 11, 2008

There are plenty of areas where UNT excells past A&M and even the other two. Music (by far the best in Texas), RTVF (again by far the best in texas), Business (competitive with any other program other than UT). Our counseling has a program in Play Therapy that is tops in the world, Environmental Ethics (the focus of Philosophy and Religion school here at UNT) is a top tier program, our English department was fantastic in my experience. Rice, UT and A&M might have better academics overall, but that's not true for everyone. The first three programs I listed are top-notch and they make up a huge portion of our school.

I think it depends on the department within the business school. I've heard of DFW employers complaining that UT InfoTech grads don't know how to code worth a lick. NT BCIS grads can code in many different languages right out of school.

Edited July 11, 2008 by UNTFan23

Stan R · July 11, 2008

I've heard of DFW employers complaining that UT InfoTech grads don't know how to code worth a lick. NT BCIS grads can code in many different languages right out of school.

I find this assertion laughable. And I am an NT BCIS grad. UT graduates (or any other large, highly competitive school with well placed graduates in positions of power) aren't going to be doing coding for long anyway because they will be in management within a short period time. Reality of the corporate world is that knowing how to "code" a certain language well only guarantees you will NOT be joining the ranks of Management anytime soon. Call me cynical, but that is reality.

Greigns · July 11, 2008

I can tell the English dept. paid off - jk.
Just curious if you had any recent sourcing for those points to shoot down the naysayers. Music is a given, but curious on the business stats especially.

I don't have anything as far as stats, but I work in Housing and have a lot of contact with people involved in these programs. That's where most of my information comes from. I know a lot of people have come from pretty far away to be part of UNT's RTVF program. The unanimous opinion I've heard is that it's the only one in Texas worth mentioning and that it's top notch. As far as the business school is concerned, I got that information from my high school counselor, so my information is a bit old (1999-2000) but she said that UT was the only school in Texas with a better business school than UNT.

As far as my grammar is concerned, I was Lit not Comp. lol.

untjim1995 · July 11, 2008

[business (competitive with any other program other than UT).

UNTFan23 · July 11, 2008

I find this assertion laughable. And I am an NT BCIS grad. UT graduates (or any other large, highly competitive school with well placed graduates in positions of power) aren't going to be doing coding for long anyway because they will be in management within a short period time. Reality of the corporate world is that knowing how to "code" a certain language well only guarantees you will NOT be joining the ranks of Management anytime soon. Call me cynical, but that is reality.

Based on my experience in the corporate world, those that don't have a firm grasp of coding and know what it takes to deploy complex IT systems don't lay out reasonable time tables.

July 12, 2008

I was asked to comment on the last three presidents contributions (or detriments) to athletics so here is my take.

Al Hurley has, in my opinion, been the second greatest president in the history of North Texas. Many of the programs and improvements in the university have Dr. Hurley's handprints all over them. He has made North Texas academically competitive with all other public universities in Texas except for the two old land-grant colleges. And, with far less money, we have some programs that even exceed theirs. But, in building that academic improvement, he gave athletics the blackest eye that they've ever had. Not moving forward in 1982 and instead falling to 1-AA was roughly equivalent to SMU's death penalty. It's a stigma that doesn't go away; especially when being considered for a conference. The only sport not drastically hurt by Hurley's academic thrust was basketball. That was likely due to his St. John's upbringing.

Norval Pohl was a breath of fresh air as far as athletics are concerned. He allowed donors to give to athletics through the Office of Development and also gave the AD the ability to set up their own fundraising area. His only failing was that liberty made him at loggerheads with the faculty who, as all faculties are, selfish about funds that are not for academia (especially their salaries and/or tenure). His support for his provost, who was especially tough on granting tenure, compromised his rapport with the faculty. That reduced his effectiveness to advance athletics.

The jury is still out on Dr. Bataille. I'll say one thing for her though. She can "work a room" with the best of them. She's charming, approachable, and seems to know what (and what not) to say. She seems to understand what high profile athletics can do for the university but so far, I've seen little evidence that she has put her plans into action.

SilverEagle · July 12, 2008

Well, here's how I see the situation with Presidents. They are hired and fired by someone. And it's those people who are the real decision makers behind our progress, or the lack thereof, in athletics.

Presidents certainly put their own stamp on things, but when they are hired, they are given directions that they need to go.

I have to assume that since Jitter Nolan only had a BS degree (a really sore spot with faculty...and others), he wasn't hired for his academic prowness. I've been told more than once, that he was hired because of his connections and his ability to raise money. Since he was allowed to hire Hayden Fry right after the infamous student referendum to drop football, I assume that those people were on board with it. And I also assumed that those people were on board with Jitter Nolans attitude of "spend money to make money". Something went wrong however and Jitter was investigated for his handling of funds and sent out the door. Since then, the Presidents that have been hired, and the coaches that have been hired by those Presidents and/or committees, have (IMHO) reflected a Dr. Matthews-like attitude about athletics.

So Presidents are certainly the front guys, but it's someone else who is the real decision makers about athletics.

So, to me, the real question is, who have our "real" decision makers been? How have they held us back? And who are the current decision makers?