Here's the problem with our scheduling

[CurveItAround]

very similar to north Texas

http://www.unt.edu/admission/

http://www.utsa.edu/...quirements.html

[meangreanmick]

very similar to north Texas

http://www.unt.edu/admission/

http://www.utsa.edu/admissions/undergrad/requirements/2013-requirements.html

Biggest Diff, everything else roughly same.

NT

Applicants who graduated in the top 10% of their high school class shall be admitted automatically to the University

Utsa

Top 25% Guaranteed Admission

[Eagle1855]

Meeting admissions requirements to does not necessarily mean you'll get accepted.

62% of applicants to UNT were accepted.

82% of applicants to UTSA were accepted.

We are a more selective university than UTSA, UH, Texas State, Texas Tech, and many others.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Eagle1855

[tylermeangreen]

I know. When they figured out I could spell and do basic math, they told me I was much too smart to attend their little college.

That and the fact that their dorms at the time were rented out Motel 6s (much like their stadium is now) pretty much sealed the deal.

I have received some mighty fine teachin'/learnin' at a Motel 6 - be still my heart!

[Baby Arm!]

Getting tread back on track... My point for scheduling Tx State in a home/home is to give us a game in Central Texas every year. In years we play UTSA at Apogee, we schedule TxSt as a road game, Flip it the next year. It would give us a recruiting presence each year in a part of the state we haven't played in for years and garner some media attention in San Antonio and Austin where North Texas is NEVER mentioned. Currently down here it's like we don't exist,

[MeanGreenTexan]

Getting tread back on track... My point for scheduling Tx State in a home/home is to give us a game in Central Texas every year. In years we play UTSA at Apogee, we schedule TxSt as a road game, Flip it the next year. It would give us a recruiting presence each year in a part of the state we haven't played in for years and garner some media attention in San Antonio and Austin where North Texas is NEVER mentioned. Currently down here it's like we don't exist,

This makes sense. I think this may be a good idea, unless those home games can be scheduled against a more superior opponent. Maybe give TXSt a 2(away) for 1(Apogee) to get down there, while keeping the home slate open for a bigger name? Surely they would jump all over that offer? It just doesn't add up financially for UNT.

[McKinneyMiner]

I was doing some research about FBS v FCS for this thread...

I know there are some FBS teams that have scheduled 2 FCS teams in the same season recently but I couldn't figure out which ones they were without literally going through all the schedules... I am pretty sure, though, that it has been done by a MAC team or two...

BUT, in the course of this research I did dig up an interesting factoid...

Apart from the brand new FBS teams (UMass, Texas St., UTSA, South Alabama, etc.) as of this season only 3 FBS teams have never scheduled an FCS team...

Notre Dame

USC

UCLA

I have to admit I am a little surprised by UCLA for some reason...

Colorado and Washington have only played once each against FCS...

[Cerebus]

Does anyone know how much we would likely have to pay to get an FCS team to play a road game without having to return the favor? I am assuming that when we play in a money game we earn in the neighborhood of $750k - $1mm, but not sure how much we would have to pay an FCS school like the ones I mentioned to come to our place. Is it possible that it is a money issue from our standpoint?

That is about right. LSU: $1.2M KSU: $700K

It is a money issue. The program needs to increase season ticket sales and MGC donations if they want to reduce tough road games. Though, as I understand it, the goal is always to have one premier program on our OOC schedule every year.

[ValleyBoy]

If you look at a map of the western part of the country you can see why USC. UCLA have not played and FCS school which is also the same reason that Colorado & Washington have also not played and FCS team.

There are just not that many FCS football schools in the western part of the country which becomes a factor when scheaduling games for western FBS schools.

[forevereagle]

Though, as I understand it, the goal is always to have one premier program on our OOC schedule every year.

I don't really have a problem with this mentality. How could ULM have beaten Arkansas and achieved a signature win if they hadn't played them? Now, two games is a bit much.

Edited September 12, 2012 by forevereagle

[Cerebus]

I don't really have a problem with this mentality. How could ULM have beaten Arkansas and achieved a signature win if they hadn't played them? Now, two games is a bit much.

One game is fine, it just shouldn't be the first game of the season.

PS: I really miss the animated gif avatars.....

PPS: Because then my avatar could be this:

Edited September 12, 2012 by Cerebus

[GL2Greatness]

Meeting admissions requirements to does not necessarily mean you'll get accepted.

62% of applicants to UNT were accepted.

82% of applicants to UTSA were accepted.

We are a more selective university than UTSA, UH, Texas State, Texas Tech, and many others.

and north Texas still has lower admissions requirements than TTU by a mile, lower than UH, and nearly the same as UTSA and TxState and only slightly ahead of UTA

and acceptance rate is a totally meaningless stastistic because it relies on two factors that are 100% out of control of the university...the total number of applicants and the qualifications of those applicants

and this link proves it is a meaningless number#

http://colleges.usne...rch.result/TX y

TSU 26.7% much lower than north Texas

UMHB, Wiley College, Southwestern Adventist, PVAMU, UH Victoria, Paul Quinn (barely accrediated), TAMU International, Midwestern State, TAMU Texarkana, Texas Wesleyan, East Texas Baptist, TAMU Commerce, Schriener, SFA, Tarleton, and actually St Edwards and UH (Main Campus) (so you were wrong there)

all those schools are "more selective" by this false metric than north Texas

again for a public school especially it is admissions standards that matter, the % of those admitted has no relevance to the actual metrics of those that were admitted it just means that a larger or smaller number of qualified students applied

Edited September 12, 2012 by GL2Greatness

[Eagle1855]

and north Texas still has lower admissions requirements than TTU by a mile

False. Good day, sir.

[Cerebus]

False. Good day, sir.

He's a troll. Don't feed.

[MeanGreenTexan]

False. Good day, sir.

Unfortunately, and I don't know when this changed because when I was looking at admission stats 3 years ago when my little sisters were looking at both UNT and Tech, they were virtually the exact same. Maybe the Flutie effect was in full force for them for the past few years? Or, they're not trying to grow their student base like UNT is.

From Texas Tech's website:

Assured Admission

You are assured admission if you are graduating from an accredited high school and present the required combination of high school class rank and college entrance test scores indicated below. The required SAT scores for assured admission are based on the math and critical reading portions only.

Class Rank Test Scores* ACT SAT

Top 10% No Minimum

First Quarter (excluding top 10%) 25 1140

Second Quarter 28 1230

Third Quarter 29 1270

Fourth Quarter Application Review

From UNT's website:

AUTOMATIC ADMISSION

Applicants who graduated in the top 10% of their high school class shall be admitted automatically to the University.*

REGULAR ADMISSION

Applicants shall be guaranteed admission if they

• Rank in the next 15% and have a minimum 950 SAT Reasoning Test (combined Critical Reading/Verbal + Math) or 20 ACT or
  
• Rank in the 2nd quarter and have a minimum 1050 SAT Reasoning Test (combined Critical Reading/Verbal + Math) or 23 ACT.
  
• Rank in the 3rd quarter and have a minimum 1180 SAT Reasoning Test (combined Critical Reading/Verbal + Math) or 26 ACT.
  

INDIVIDUAL REVIEW

Applicants who do not meet the above requirements or who rank in the 4th quarter may be admitted only by individual review.*

[GL2Greatness]

False. Good day, sir.

no actually it is correct

http://www.admission...-time-freshmen/

http://www.unt.edu/admission/

top 10% automatic for both as per state law

next 15% Tech requires a 25 ACT 1140 SAT north texas requires a 20 or 950

second 25% Tech 28/1230 north Texas 23/1050

third 25% Tech 29/1270 north Texas 26/1180

and they have been higher for much longer than 3 years it has been more like a decade

here is proof

north Texas admissions from 2003

http://web.archive.o....edu/admission/

they are the same as now

from Texas Tech in 2003

http://web.archive.o...du/frshinfo.asp

they are the same as they are now so for nearly a decade Tech has has significantly higher admissions requirements

(wait for the links to forward they are both webcrawls from 2003)

Edited September 12, 2012 by GL2Greatness

[Eagle1855]

no actually it is correct

http://www.admission...-time-freshmen/

http://www.unt.edu/admission/

top 10% automatic for both as per state law

next 15% Tech requires a 25 ACT 1140 SAT north texas requires a 20 or 950

second 25% Tech 28/1230 north Texas 23/1050

third 25% Tech 29/1270 north Texas 26/1180

and they have been higher for much longer than 3 years it has been more like a decade

here is proof

north Texas admissions from 2003

http://web.archive.o....edu/admission/

they are the same as now

from Texas Tech in 2003

http://web.archive.o....edu/admission/

they are the same as they are now so for nearly a decade Tech has has significantly higher admissions requirements

Yes, but what you've not considered is the fact that I'm tall and have flowing brown locks of hair and play guitar, and therefore have no use for facts.

[kalebschumann]

What does admissions have to do with scheduling? Not trying to troll here. What do our admission requirements have to do with who we schedule in the OOC schedule...?

[McKinneyMiner]

There are just not that many FCS football schools in the western part of the country which becomes a factor when scheaduling games for western FBS schools.

In the case of USC and UCLA that might be true, although there are a few within reasonable distance...

But in the case of Washington and Colorado I think the real reason might have more to do with the quality of close FCS schools...

Eastern Washington, Montana and Montana St. might not be that attractive to Washington since those schools tend to be at the top of the FCS every year...

And Colorado might not want all that much to do with Northern Colorado, Northern Arizona or Weber St. either...

None of those FCS schools is extremely close to the larger FBS school, but close enough to make the trip worth it if they were offered a chance... They aren't being offered those chances...

Scheduling FCS is a tricky business because you never know when one of those schools is going to have an exceptional team or if your school might have a bit of down year and run into a school that matches up for a season...

Nothing sucks the enthusiasm out of a fan base like a loss to FCS... Nothing...

The only light at the end of the tunnel of losing to an FCS school is that the game is early and can be overcome with other OOC games and conference play... See Temple who lost to Villanova (an FCS powerhouse) in 2009 but still played UCLA in a bowl game...

[Harry]

I was doing some research about FBS v FCS for this thread...

I know there are some FBS teams that have scheduled 2 FCS teams in the same season recently but I couldn't figure out which ones they were without literally going through all the schedules... I am pretty sure, though, that it has been done by a MAC team or two...

BUT, in the course of this research I did dig up an interesting factoid...

Apart from the brand new FBS teams (UMass, Texas St., UTSA, South Alabama, etc.) as of this season only 3 FBS teams have never scheduled an FCS team...

Notre Dame

USC

UCLA

I have to admit I am a little surprised by UCLA for some reason...

Colorado and Washington have only played once each against FCS...

To quote Johnny Carson I did not know that!

[GrandGreen]

and north Texas still has lower admissions requirements than TTU by a mile, lower than UH, and nearly the same as UTSA and TxState and only slightly ahead of UTA

and acceptance rate is a totally meaningless stastistic because it relies on two factors that are 100% out of control of the university...the total number of applicants and the qualifications of those applicants

and this link proves it is a meaningless number#

http://colleges.usne...rch.result/TX y

TSU 26.7% much lower than north Texas

UMHB, Wiley College, Southwestern Adventist, PVAMU, UH Victoria, Paul Quinn (barely accrediated), TAMU International, Midwestern State, TAMU Texarkana, Texas Wesleyan, East Texas Baptist, TAMU Commerce, Schriener, SFA, Tarleton, and actually St Edwards and UH (Main Campus) (so you were wrong there)

all those schools are "more selective" by this false metric than north Texas

again for a public school especially it is admissions standards that matter, the % of those admitted has no relevance to the actual metrics of those that were admitted it just means that a larger or smaller number of qualified students applied

I hate to break it to you, most quoted University stats are questionable at best. Acceptance rate is not a good metric but admissions standards are? Admission requirements as a standard are a metric that means less than even acceptance rates. Standards mean nothing if you have an open door policy through special admits.

If you believe released university stats. The 75% test scores at Tech are 26 act and 2000 sat and the acceptance rate is 68%. At NT the same numbers are 25/1190 and acceptance rate is 64%. In other words there is no significant difference which is hard to explain assuming that Tech standards as you assert are miles above NT and have been for years. The only fair conclusion you can draw is despite Tech having higher published entrance standards that they actually admit equivalent students by test score as NT.

My conclusion and I doubt you or anyone else can prove otherwise; is that is very difference between the second tier Texas state schools. UH, Tech, UTA, TSSM and NT as far as measured academic criteria. As far as which provides the best education, there is not a metric anywhere that really can measure that.

[CurveItAround]

This thread got me thinking about the $'s involved. I apologize in advance for any brain hurt the following causes:

I don't have a feel for how much revenue the program generates for a home game, but if we use a figure of $500k (if someone has an idea of what the real number is, please provide), let's look at some potential numbers involved when deciding to play money games or not versus other options. Numbers below represent gross, not net, so the actual numbers will be less once costs are accounted for.

Conference schedule stays the same 4 home/4 away.

4 OOC games available. Let's say we have 2 home/home series we are currently involved in that provide one home and one away game for a given year.

Which leaves us with our last 2 OOC games -

Option 1: Schedule 2 addtional home/home series so that one series is at home and one is away in a given year. This option provides us with 6 home games. Using our assumption of $500k per home game, we are $500k to the good.

Option 2: Schedule 1 money game on the road (+$750k) and pay 1 team to come to our place (assume it costs $500k). Our net gain is $250K plus the $500k revenue from the extra home game. Probably adds 1 loss and hopefully 1 win to the schedule most years. 6 home games. $750k to the good.

Option 3: Schedule 2 money games on the road. This option gives us 5 home games and let's assume $750k per money game. This adds $1.5mm of revenue. Probably adds 2 losses to the schedule in most years if we are playing teams willing to pay $750k. $1.5mm to the good (conservative?)

Feel free to tweak the numbers to make the examples more realistic, but it is starts becoming easy to understand why programs have to go for the 2 money game option. We would conservatively have to raise another $$750k to $1.5mm in ticket sales or MGC to replace the money games depending on whether you go for option 1 or 2 instead of option 3.

[MeanGreenHoops]

This thread got me thinking about the $'s involved. I apologize in advance for any brain hurt the following causes:

I don't have a feel for how much revenue the program generates for a home game, but if we use a figure of $500k (if someone has an idea of what the real number is, please provide), let's look at some potential numbers involved when deciding to play money games or not versus other options. Numbers below represent gross, not net, so the actual numbers will be less once costs are accounted for.

Conference schedule stays the same 4 home/4 away.

4 OOC games available. Let's say we have 2 home/home series we are currently involved in that provide one home and one away game for a given year.

Which leaves us with our last 2 OOC games -

Option 1: Schedule 2 addtional home/home series so that one series is at home and one is away in a given year. This option provides us with 6 home games. Using our assumption of $500k per home game, we are $500k to the good.

Option 2: Schedule 1 money game on the road (+$750k) and pay 1 team to come to our place (assume it costs $500k). Our net gain is $250K plus the $500k revenue from the extra home game. Probably adds 1 loss and hopefully 1 win to the schedule most years. 6 home games. $750k to the good.

Option 3: Schedule 2 money games on the road. This option gives us 5 home games and let's assume $750k per money game. This adds $1.5mm of revenue. Probably adds 2 losses to the schedule in most years if we are playing teams willing to pay $750k. $1.5mm to the good (conservative?)

Feel free to tweak the numbers to make the examples more realistic, but it is starts becoming easy to understand why programs have to go for the 2 money game option. We would conservatively have to raise another $$750k to $1.5mm in ticket sales or MGC to replace the money games depending on whether you go for option 1 or 2 instead of option 3.

It is easy to see why we schedule two or more money games, the problem is we can't afford it. We haven't started a season 2-1 since 1994. That's almost 20 years. No wonder we have low attendance and poor fan support. The fact we get as many people as we do is a miracle.

We need to treat this thing like a startup company. Lose money for awhile by scheduling more cupcakes and bag easy wins, so fans/donors come and invest. Then when we start turning a profit we can afford to schedule the tougher games.

[GrandGreen]

Guarantee games are not the problem, a poor football program is. Other than 2002 and 2003, NT has had teams that should be and probably were rated among the twenty worst in fb football since returning to the fb division.

Now that NT has beat a very bad rent-a-win team, people are pointed to past schedules as the problem. It is not, just as losing away to a football power is not very meaningful for NT right now, neither is beating the TSU's of the world.

The only thing NT has done positive thus far this season is hang relatively tough with LSU. As much as many want to spin the win over TSU as a positive, NT beat a team whose average lost to a fb division school was over 50 points and scored less against them than Prairie View A & M. Hardly a cause for celebration.

McCarney is building a program and for the first time since Fry in the fb or 1a division, I believe NT has a coaching staff that is on par with most of their division. I don't care for fc division foes, but everyone seemed to have a good time Saturday and that is fine but I don't believe for a second beating up on a very poor team is going to elevate football at NT.

[tylermeangreen]

It is easy to see why we schedule two or more money games, the problem is we can't afford it. We haven't started a season 2-1 since 1994. That's almost 20 years. No wonder we have low attendance and poor fan support. The fact we get as many people as we do is a miracle.

We need to treat this thing like a startup company. Lose money for awhile by scheduling more cupcakes and bag easy wins, so fans/donors come and invest. Then when we start turning a profit we can afford to schedule the tougher games.

I don't disagree with you - but they need to be NAME cupcakes; the FCS teams and like won't do it for us.

We have been in the Sunbelt for many years and I still come across people that say "who?" when I tell them which universities are in the conference.

Playing and beating NAME cupcakes will meet a lot of needs.