Students Will Help Decide The Fate Of A New Unt Stadium

[UNTflyer]

http://www.star-telegram.com/college_sport...ory/888698.html

Edited September 6, 2008 by UNTflyer

[ADLER]

Looks great.

I don't believe that is the revised HKS design since it sure seems to match so well with the previous set of drawings from F&S Partners.

I am anxious to see the model today as well as any new HKS illustrations.

[JesseMartin]

I'm glad that they showed the faulty reasoning many anti-fee people use, such as I posted on another thread a few days ago.

It sucks that they got the Rec Center part wrong, though. It's a separate fee.

They could also have mentioned that upgrading Fouts would cost about half as much as a new stadium.

[OldTimer]

http://www.star-telegram.com/college_sport...ory/888698.html

I think it is interesting that the Star Telegram article with picture filled 2/3 of a full page....4 of six columns. I can't remember any article on NT as large. The anti group totals 164 members vs more than 1400 members that are for the increase.

[SilverEagle]

I think it is interesting that the Star Telegram article with picture filled 2/3 of a full page....4 of six columns. I can't remember any article on NT as large. The anti group totals 164 members vs more than 1400 members that are for the increase.

I'm torn about this article. I think it has the potential to energize the anti-stadium crowd as much as the pro crowd. Especially in light of the economic news that came out yesterday.

However, it's good to show the alumni in the area how serious NT is about athletics....and this project.

[flyeater]

I'm glad that they showed the faulty reasoning many anti-fee people use, such as I posted on another thread a few days ago.

It sucks that they got the Rec Center part wrong, though. It's a separate fee.

They could also have mentioned that upgrading Fouts would cost about half as much as a new stadium.

Wow, given the earnest attempt to bring this to the forefront, you're some critic. As for the last part, you didn't really understand what Rick said. Cost wasn't the only factor; the current infrastructure would have involved ripping up drainage and digging halfway to China, which doesn't mitigate the problem of "moving" the entire stadium forward all the way around after the track is taken out. It wasn't a matter of simple upgrading but more like moving a mansion from one end of town to the next. Why do it? For what it would have cost, you've got half or more of a new one paid for.

[Green Mean]

I'm torn about this article. I think it has the potential to energize the anti-stadium crowd as much as the pro crowd. Especially in light of the economic news that came out yesterday.

However, it's good to show the alumni in the area how serious NT is about athletics....and this project.

It could be. However at this point I just think there is too much momentum going in NT's favor. I just hope everyone realize that if this thing does not pass then it will be a total disaster. Now that more people are getting informed with all the CORRECT information on the project, I would think that more and more people would be on board and more excited about the thing. I guess hope is all I have left.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Great article, and the photo is key--give people an opportunity to visualize the goal. It may energize students who are already against a new stadium--any mention of a new stadium will--but I don't think it turns anyone against it.

[GoMeanGreen1999]

http://www.star-telegram.com/college_sport...ory/888698.html

Just a question here - don't read anything into it - on the designs that they will show, will they also be showing future expansion places or ideas in the forms of drawings?

[flyeater]

There was a list in the paper, not online, that showed how student fees in the Belt go to athletics. From what I could tell, only Troy and the two La-La's have more penny-ante methods of tying student fees to athletic funding. My guess is they also have to fight the big-boy bias (LSU, Bama) in state government to get athletic funding, which is allowed in those states but not Texas.

Point is, we're behind in the way we do things, just in our own conference.

[NCMeanGreen]

I'm glad that they showed the faulty reasoning many anti-fee people use, such as I posted on another thread a few days ago.

It sucks that they got the Rec Center part wrong, though. It's a separate fee.

They could also have mentioned that upgrading Fouts would cost about half as much as a new stadium.

I was under the assumption that upgrading Fouts would actually cost more. If it would cost half as much...one would wonder if this was a "Plan B" scenario???

[Mean Green 93-98]

I was under the assumption that upgrading Fouts would actually cost more. If it would cost half as much...one would wonder if this was a "Plan B" scenario???

I would think it would be easier to raise $60 million for a bright, shiny new stadium than $30 to renovate Fouts. I just don't think a renovation markets to donors nearly as well.

[UNTflyer]

There was a list in the paper, not online, that showed how student fees in the Belt go to athletics. From what I could tell, only Troy and the two La-La's have more penny-ante methods of tying student fees to athletic funding. My guess is they also have to fight the big-boy bias (LSU, Bama) in state government to get athletic funding, which is allowed in those states but not Texas.

Point is, we're behind in the way we do things, just in our own conference.

And the figure for North Texas is wrong. Man, of all the things to make a mistake on...

We do not charge $14/hr for athletics. We get $3/hr from the student service fee.

[football fan]

Group founder Joe McNulty of Allen said the university lacks evidence that new stadiums boost attendance or success. The current economy and a recent UNT tuition increase are also reasons to oppose a student-funded stadium

Mr. McNulty & Ms. Sears,

You say there is no proof that first class facilities boost attendance or success. Let me ask you this: how many of the top tier, successful D-1 football programs have poor, delapidated and inadequate facilities? NONE!! I guess that would be proof to some degree. I also encourage you to call the University of Texas Admissions office and ask them how a successful football program effects student interest/enrollment. Case in point: when UT won the National Championship in 2005, they had a significant spike in the number of enrollment applications the following fall semester. I know this a fact because my wife's cousin has worked in the UT Student Admissions office for 17+ years. Not to mention the revenue benefit for the entire athletic program (mens and womens), there is significant benefit academically. To name a few: increased student applications enables the school to upgrade incoming student quality, increase tuition, upgrade academic facilities, attract higher level of educators etc. At the end of the day, the percieved and real value of your education/diploma is improved. I truly believe this is a good thing. You are fortunate to now have a university president that understands this dynamic. Even if you hate football and never attend a game, you will benefit. How can you honestly and rationally disagree?

[UNTflyer]

McNulty isn't even a student. He was one of those anti-stadium guys at the NT Daily in 2002.

[flyeater]

And the figure for North Texas is wrong. Man, of all the things to make a mistake on...

We do not charge $14/hr for athletics. We get $3/hr from the student service fee.

It doesn't say $14 goes to athletics. Read the intro. It says a PART of general fees at those schools goes to athletics.

[UNTflyer]

It doesn't say $14 goes to athletics. Read the intro. It says a PART of general fees at those schools goes to athletics.

I know, but it compares it to the athletics fee for some of the other schools. It gives the wrong impression.

[oldguystudent]

I'm waayyyy to new here to have an opinion one way or the other on a new stadium.

That said, here are my questions on the matter.

1) What is the ultimate goal of UNT football?

UNT will obviously never be a Texas or an A&M. BCS conference is not realistically in the picture. So where does UNT want itself positioned? Top of the Sunbelt Conference? Movement to a better Conference like C-USA where we might fare about as well as UTEP (some good years, some bad, no championships)?

2) Given UNT's current status as a lower tier team in a really low conference, how much will a new stadium realistically affect recruitment over 5 years? 10 years? What's it done for FIU?

3) What kind of revenue increases can the football program expect from a new stadium? The capacity looks about the same, so the addition comes from the 14 skyboxes?

4) How strong is UNT's commitment to football?

I'm always skittish on this since I became a student in California, I've seen Long Beach State, Cal State Fullerton, Chico State, Pacific, UC Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Cal State Northridge, and Sonoma State drop their football programs. I see locally that UTA once had a team as well. What guarantee do I have that if I vote for this stadium, I'm going to have a team to watch 5 years from now?

5) Are tickets suddenly going to shoot up to $50 to retire the construction debt in a timely manner?

Please don't misunderstand me as being anti-stadium. I am giddy like a kid on Christmas morning at the prospect of going to the game today. I feel robbed and cheated that I went to a school with no football the first time around. I want the program to continue and to succeed, and when I graduate (again) and start working (again), I'm not adverse to writing checks to the athletic foundation (as I have done on numerous occasions with UC Irvine). I just don't want a decision of this magnitude to based solely on keeping up with the Jones mentality.

[UNTflyer]

1) Our goal is to be a nationally competitive program, regardless of conference affiliation.

2) A new stadium will improve recruitment. Look what it's done for UConn, Louisville, and Central Florida.

3) We would sell out a new stadium because we would draw better opponents and the sight lines are much better.

4) In the past, not very strong. We believe the stadium will change that.

5) I imagine ticket prices will rise, but until we are selling out games I don't see a huge increase.

[flyeater]

I know, but it compares it to the athletics fee for some of the other schools. It gives the wrong impression.

Not to me. The schools that levy an athletic fee send that money specifically to athletics. The other five, us being one of them, obviously fund athletics on a smaller scale. We need to change that, so as to be forward thinking.

[JayDub]

That UNT could impose an athletic fee on students without a referendum isn’t lost on her.

I, like many, am growing pretty weary of letting college kids decide if they should pick up the tab for something. There are too many that don't want to contribute to the betterment of their university at all for the sake of saving them a few bucks on a total bill that is still less than most comparable universities.

WARNING...HSO.

If the students vote no, I say impose it without them...and make it double what is proposed for the trouble.

[flyeater]

I, like many, am growing pretty weary of letting college kids decide if they should pick up the tab for something. There are too many that don't want to contribute to the betterment of their university at all for the sake of saving them a few bucks on a total bill that is still less than most comparable universities.

WARNING...HSO.

If the students vote no, I say impose it without them...and make it double what is proposed for the trouble.

Amen. But I have faith in our students. I really believe they'll do the right thing, and they won't regret it.

[Green Mean]

1) What is the ultimate goal of UNT football?

UNT will obviously never be a Texas or an A&M. BCS conference is not realistically in the picture. So where does UNT want itself positioned? Top of the Sunbelt Conference? Movement to a better Conference like C-USA where we might fare about as well as UTEP (some good years, some bad, no championships)?

They may never be a Texas or an A&M but it does not mean they cant become a big player or a big boy in college athletics. If the direction and leadership is there I truly believe NT can become a big school in athletics. Believe it or not a BCS conference is really not out of the picture if we can get this new stadium and consistently start winning. Though highly unlikely, there have been very small talks of the Big East wanting to a big expansion and would not mind adding schools from from our region. Again its not likey but its not impossible. To be frank, I am not really high on CUSA. Its a rehash of the old SWC without any of the schools that really matter. I think outreach from a national standpoint should be a huge consideration in choosing conference affiliation. I mean if we are in a conference with a bunch of Texas schools in our level then I just dont think there is a lot of room for advancement in my opinion. All in all I really think a new stadium is a huge boost for the university and the whole athletics program. And with the right leadership I think the sky is the limit at NT.

[dodgefan]

It looks great! I'm surprised that you folks are not complaining, that it looks just like Ford Stadium at SMU?

[Mean Green 93-98]

It's worth knowing that, prior to its banishment to 12 or so years of 1-AA purgatory, North Texas had a history of success as a football team--often competetive nationally. As much as we have grown since then, the biggest limitations keeping us from becoming nationally competetive again are our own self-imposed limitations.

Another UT or A&M? Maybe not. But there was a time when we would have seemed far more likely to be another UT or A&M than Tech, and Tech is getting awfully close. I agree with Green Mean 100%--with the right leadership, the sky's the limit.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Mean Green 93-98