I Love This Story...

TIgreen01 · August 11, 2009

While they may be a conduit to others, that does not mean that their opinions are in line with those that they talk to.

That may be true, but we certainly know the opinions of those we talk to and that can and will impact/shape your own opinion in return.

I'd wager that many of the complaints you read on the board are the regulars retelling of a conversation they had with a friend who isn't a "die-hard" fan.

**ps. I have to say, though, that the new additions to the AD sponsored website are flat out awesome! I love that we get regularly(daily) updated blogs, free video, feature stories from people inside the AD. I wouldn't care if all of it was fluff (not all of it is), it's just nice to have another source for UNT athletics info/news.

Edited August 11, 2009 by TIgreen01

LoveMG · August 12, 2009

Far from the worst ever, but if that makes you feel better then go right on believing that.

bob tyler is second worst era at .182

guess what 3-21 equals

GrandGreen · August 12, 2009

Far from the worst ever, but if that makes you feel better then go right on believing that.

It doesn't make me feel better, but I don't think you can find anything in NT history that comes close to matching the last two years in football futility. Being positive and optimistic is great, but you can't cover up the record of the last two years. There may have been years were the win/loss records were as bad but nothing matches the total non-competitiveness of the program in Dodge's first two years. I attended all the home games in Bob Tyler's one season and the disaster of Rod Rust's last season and I can honestly tell you that there is little comparison between those years and last year.

You can argue why the last two years were bad, but I really don't see how anyone can state they were "far from the worst ever". Give me an example of any NT team in the last 50 years that supports your contention. Any real NT fan wants Dodge to succeed and in a mammoth way, but why try to obscure the obvious.

aztecskin · August 12, 2009

Ok, so I never said that the AD should not keep an eye on what is going on here and 200 was just a number I threw out for the sake of having a number. Thanks for all of the feedback, but I still don't agree that this board is an indication of the opinions of the entire UNT fan base. When was the last time you heard "according to an internet message board, the President's approval rating is 56%"? You also don't use the poll from a website to gauge public opinion. It isn't smart business. That holds true here. This site can help you gauge the opinions of some of your most active fans, but not even all of those are on this site. People have to post in order for you to hear their opinions. There are a lot of lurkers on here who don't say a word. To use this site as the best indicator of the opinions of everyone, that would be a mistake. There are a lot on here who like to accuse the AD of sloppy marketing, to use this site as the crux of your market research would be extremely sloppy. The best use for a message board would be to communicate with your most die hard fans and to find direction for your deeper dive into fan opinions. This site gives direction, not indication.

Two things about that:

1. Internet technology is relatively new compared to traditional ways of polling the masses. (Going back to when King David took a census--even further than that, I think the Babylonians did some polling). So don't knock it because it doesn't have a long history of use. Also, after taking away the internet-y ness of it, you are left with checking out what people are saying amongst themselves about your program. Kings used to send out spies to see what the people were murmuring about him when he wasn't around. It is a good method to get a general idea of what the hell is going on.

2. It isn't the best way, but it is another way. I say we use the best, and then also use some other methods to get a balanced picture of the fan base. Example: the best way to check my balance at the bank is to go and ask. But I use multiple ways: Mint.com, Wellsfargo.com, monthly statements, text banking.

warning! self-promotion alert! I put my two cents on the shelf of my blog. You can have them if you'd like.

Edited August 12, 2009 by aztecskin

forevereagle · August 12, 2009

Two things about that:
1. Internet technology is relatively new compared to traditional ways of polling the masses. (Going back to when King David took a census--even further than that, I think the Babylonians did some polling). So don't knock it because it doesn't have a long history of use. Also, after taking away the internet-y ness of it, you are left with checking out what people are saying amongst themselves about your program. Kings used to send out spies to see what the people were murmuring about him when he wasn't around. It is a good method to get a general idea of what the hell is going on.
2. It isn't the best way, but it is another way. I say we use the best, and then also use some other methods to get a balanced picture of the fan base. Example: the best way to check my balance at the bank is to go and ask. But I use multiple ways: Mint.com, Wellsfargo.com, monthly statements, text banking.
warning! self-promotion alert! I put my two cents on the shelf of my blog. You can have them if you'd like.

I am not discounting the power of the internet as a tool to do research. In fact, I am in the business of doing ust that. I am warning against self-selection bias. Those who choose to participate will offer a different opinion set about issues than those who choose not to participate. You need to generate your data based on the entire population you are polling, not just the people who want to respond. If you make decisions about how to proceed based on a biased sample, then you could make a decision that ends in disaster for you and your product.

GoMeanGreen1999 · August 12, 2009

Far from the worst ever, but if that makes you feel better then go right on believing that.

Um, numbers say it is.

aztecskin · August 12, 2009

Maybe the worst two years, but the 'regime' isn't over yet.

Let's play a game.

What would happen if one of these guys read my blog and in a show of support, gave me a couple bil each and with my new found stash o' cash, I donated to the great UNT. I funded the stadium, I flush NT with so much cash that they are now a big time player.

How long do you think RV would hold on to this regime and its numbers?

Seriously, how much of our committment to him is money and factors not influenced by football? I mean, like the Dickey thing, that furniture guy freakin held the ath department hostage and made them name their facility after DD! lol.

Again, for the record, I am a give-em-three-years guy. But just wondering.

Arkstfan · August 12, 2009

The argument that it doesn't represent a full sample applies to any medium now.

The old coffee shop, sports hang-out method gauging opinion excludes people who don't gather in such places and I can tell you the opinions in the ASU camp when we gather in Central Arkansas often are very different from those in Jonesboro.

You can't reach everyone via newspaper, readership numbers are falling.

TV? Audience is flat and splintering.

Could do a phone poll but you miss the people who no longer have landline and you miss people like me who won't answer their landline unless they recognize the number on caller ID.

Sports radio? Self-selected and tends to skew older and less educated than the net.

But what I find interesting and I think aztecskin nailed in his blog is that the establishment view is the difference.

They might not like an opinon column by a sports writer for the newspaper or the rants of a radio host, but rare is the admin person willing to dismiss newspapers or radio. When have you ever seen or heard an official be critical of those jerks at Clyde's Wing Shack for what they are saying about the program?

Intercollegiate athletic departments ought to be well equipped to deal with the net and they are generally very bad at it because they focus on:

1. Figuring a way to monetize it

2. Using it as a one-way communication vehicle.

3. Disparage it because they can't seem to see anything other than the opinions they don't like.

UNTLifer · August 12, 2009

It doesn't make me feel better, but I don't think you can find anything in NT history that comes close to matching the last two years in football futility. Being positive and optimistic is great, but you can't cover up the record of the last two years. There may have been years were the win/loss records were as bad but nothing matches the total non-competitiveness of the program in Dodge's first two years. I attended all the home games in Bob Tyler's one season and the disaster of Rod Rust's last season and I can honestly tell you that there is little comparison between those years and last year.
You can argue why the last two years were bad, but I really don't see how anyone can state they were "far from the worst ever". Give me an example of any NT team in the last 50 years that supports your contention. Any real NT fan wants Dodge to succeed and in a mammoth way, but why try to obscure the obvious.

The department when Tyler was here, along with a few other coaches, was a joke and far from where this department is currently. There was absolutely no reason to have any hope for the future, or belief that Tyler would or could turn things around. I believe there is much hope for the future of the department and with Dodge's ability to turn this around, so I would say this "era", all of two years, is far better than the Tyler era or a few others.

forevereagle · August 12, 2009

The argument that it doesn't represent a full sample applies to any medium now.

Not entirely true. You can project a representative sample from many different methodologies, you just need to understand the skew and work to combat it through setting a quota for different groups in order to make your out come match the population.

The old coffee shop, sports hang-out method gauging opinion excludes people who don't gather in such places and I can tell you the opinions in the ASU camp when we gather in Central Arkansas often are very different from those in Jonesboro.

This was never a good method of gauging public opinion outside of a small community.

You can't reach everyone via newspaper, readership numbers are falling.
TV? Audience is flat and splintering.

I was not referring to advertising, only research. Advertising is not my game, but you just need to understand the audience you are trying to reach and where they go and how they receive messaging, these can still be successful methods.

Could do a phone poll but you miss the people who no longer have landline and you miss people like me who won't answer their landline unless they recognize the number on caller ID.

Phone research can still be very successful and can still reach groups that are unavailable through any other means. Mall intercepts can also be successful if you choose the geographies that you are researching in well.

Sports radio? Self-selected and tends to skew older and less educated than the net.

If you are talking about advertising, see above. If this is a research method, not valid, never was.

But what I find interesting and I think aztecskin nailed in his blog is that the establishment view is the difference.

Did not read his comments, so not going to comment here.

They might not like an opinon column by a sports writer for the newspaper or the rants of a radio host, but rare is the admin person willing to dismiss newspapers or radio. When have you ever seen or heard an official be critical of those jerks at Clyde's Wing Shack for what they are saying about the program?
Intercollegiate athletic departments ought to be well equipped to deal with the net and they are generally very bad at it because they focus on:
1. Figuring a way to monetize it
2. Using it as a one-way communication vehicle.
3. Disparage it because they can't seem to see anything other than the opinions they don't like.

The net can be a very affective tool, but it has to be used correctly. Let's not single out athletic departments, many businesses have not yet figured out a way to make the net work for them. trying to turn the internet into a successful business model is very difficult and a lot of people have failed to make the internet work for them.

emmitt01 · August 12, 2009

you just need to understand the skew and work to combat it through setting a quota for different groups in order to make your out come match the population.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!!! Didn't we just get rid of the Non-UNT sports forum for this very reason? I blame Obama.

LoveMG · August 12, 2009

The department when Tyler was here, along with a few other coaches, was a joke and far from where this department is currently. There was absolutely no reason to have any hope for the future, or belief that Tyler would or could turn things around. I believe there is much hope for the future of the department and with Dodge's ability to turn this around, so I would say this "era", all of two years, is far better than the Tyler era or a few others.

in apples to apples the team last year was the worst in nt history bar none. if the department is measured by conference championships then no it is not better now. we had no points in national sports poll. if measured by improved tailgating and facilities if we get a new stadium then yes better now. your original comment lacks merit.

GrandGreen · August 12, 2009

The department when Tyler was here, along with a few other coaches, was a joke and far from where this department is currently. There was absolutely no reason to have any hope for the future, or belief that Tyler would or could turn things around. I believe there is much hope for the future of the department and with Dodge's ability to turn this around, so I would say this "era", all of two years, is far better than the Tyler era or a few others.

I thought you were talking about records and performances not intangibles. Most would think when you are discussing a team's performance that you are referring to on the field action not the climate within the athletic program. I think if you look at the scores you will have to agree that Tyler's club was a lot more competitive on the field. There was certainly hope when Tyler was hired and he was promptly fired after his one year due to off the field transgressions more than his record. There are a lot of positive things currently going on within NT's athletes program now, however I don't think that is germane to the debate about the quality of the football team. By your rationale, the last two years could be termed the golden age of NT football as the emphasis has been primarily on improving the program rather than cost containment which has been the focus for most of NT's history before moving back up to 1a or FB Division football.