Students and Alumni care more about winning than the BOR and the chanc

[PlummMeanGreen]

We should aim to emulate UH or Boise. 30K attendance consistently.

As a former Cougar fan when I was a teenager, I do recall that it hasn't always been attendance gravy at the University of Houston, either; plus I've kept my eyes on the att. part of their Game Day boxscores thru the years, too.

A Few Select Years of UH Cougar Football & Attendance Averages (note small number of home games some yrs and also keep in mind that UH has been able to schedule about 100% more former SWC schools & Big Time schools than North Texas, too).

1998..........5 games..........16,295 average

1999..........5 games..........20,003 average

2000..........4 games..........15, 795 average

2001..........6 games..........19,795 average

(a dated article about past UH attendance but with a theme we can relate)

UH Football Attendance

To say that the University of Houston football program has a nagging attendance problem would be an understatement. For having an enrollment in excess of 33,000 students (the third-largest university in the state behind Texas and Texas A&M) and being located in the fourth-largest city in the United States, attendance at UH sporting events such as football simply sucks. Of the 117 schools currently playing division I-A football, Houston ranks towards the bottom in terms of attendance, with higher crowd numbers than a handful of schools, like Akron or Louisiana-Monore, but with game day crowds well below those of other urban public schools like Louisville or Memphis and nowhere near those of flagship state schools like Texas or Louisiana State. Many seasons, schools like Michigan or Tennessee will attract more fans to see a single game than the University of houston will attract in an entire season of five or six home games.

Several reasons have been postulated for Houston's poor performance at the ticket office, such as the fact that Houston is a lousy, fair-weather sports town in general or the fact that the University of Houston has too many non-traditional, apathetic students in particular, and attendance-related laments are common on message boards such as Coogfans.com. The poor attendance is of serious concern, because fewer fans mean less revenue for an athletics department that is already facing serious budget shortfalls.

What's the best way to increase attendance at UH football games? Several lengthy manifests have been written over the years on the various UH message boards about this subject, with solutions ranging from increasing the number of students living on campus to moving home games to Reliant Stadium to embarking on an extensive (and expensive) city-wide advertising blitz. This being a fair-weather sports town like Houston, however, the fact is that the best way to get fans to see your team play is to win. And lately, the Cougars just haven't been winning.

The University of Houston football program has enjoyed only 9 non-losing seasons out of the last 20. During that time they have gone to only five bowl games (including last year's Fort Worth Bowl) and have not won any of them. The Coogs have not ended the season ranked in the Top 25 since 1990. They haven't beaten a ranked opponent at home since 1996 and haven't beaten a ranked opponent on the road since 1984. Quite simply, there hasn't been much about UH football for local fans to get excited about over the last two decades. Interest did pick up and attendance did briefly increase during the short-lived run-and-shoot days of the late 80s, but during the 1990s the program stagnated once again, the losses mounted and the crowds disappeared. Clearly, if this program is to survive, something has to change.

__________________________________________________

North Texas attendance problems can be fixed, but we just have to do a few things different; and it will take the entire UNT constituency to fix it. Not one of our constituencies can single-handedly fix it the way we all want it fixed as to stay fixed.

GMG!

Edited September 19, 2013 by PlummMeanGreen

[Mean Green 93-98]

I'm not crazy about the mediocre expectations either, but look . . . who are they for? Are they really being set for the team and coaches? No, they are for those who will be evaluating funding for athletics. Perhaps the expectations were intentionally set low so future committees don't say, "See? Athletics isn't achieving at the level they were supposed to achieve with this funding."

[KingDL1]

So we have been to something like 6 bowl games in 100 years and when we now publish that we expect to go to bowls at least every other year, that is somehow too low of a goal?

This is a sad comparison with out qualifying, you realize we have had 48 winning seasons which means better that .500 in the regular, whether it be 6-5 or 7-5 depending on games played that season, only 42 non winning seasons when we played 8 more games. With the supply of Bowls these days we would have been in over 42 bowl games, that is minus the years in 1Daa. We went to the bowl in 2001 with a losing record which would total us out at 43 bowls. By the way we have not played a 100 years of football we actually have 97 years of football.

[forevereagle]

[GrayEagle]

I came to the party late and I'm not sure what the bone of contention is...

Is it compromising on the athletic fee? Is it mediocre goals? Is it the Board of Regents? Is it the Athletic Department?

Look, I've got damn few years left on this earth and I like to see all athletics leap forward. But, there's been a lot of progress in the past few years and much of that was done sensibly. Have there been mistakes made by RV and the Athletic Department? You bet. Does the good outweigh the bad? It's no contest. So, why not put down the gun and let's enjoy orderly progress (as long as we continue to progress). You can still voice displeasure with hirings, attendance, lack of promotion, scheduling, etc. without constantly nagging.

I don't know that the athletics fee would fall in this category but sometimes there are tradeoffs to get other things accomplished. Reducing one request in order to get another unrelated approval happens all of the time. As long as the athletics budget has increased so that we are competitive with our conference mates...I'm happy. That certainly appears to be the case.

I also believe in setting realistic, achievable goals. When that goal is achieved then you set a higher obtainable mark. I believe that unobtainable goals defeat their purpose. However, making goals too easy accomplishes nothing. Every goal should be greater than, or at least equal to past accomplishments. I don't know what is expected of each sport but it seems that basketball got off easy. Contract consideration or not, give us a decent home non-conference schedule. Three NAIA teams is way beyond unacceptable.

Why the disdain for the BOR? They only act on administration proposals and from what I've seen all have been favorable. They don't propose legislation, They don't say, "I'm sorry, but you didn't request enough". I have, and will continue to be a strong supporter of our Board of Regents. C. Dan Smith has done an outstanding job of getting approvals for athletics. Let's not piss off the group that has done nothing but help us.

Lastly, I saw a post that gave me hope. UNT90 referred to attendance at the last game as the stadium being half-full rather than half-empty. He may be coming around.

Edited September 19, 2013 by GrayEagle

[KRAM1]

I came to the party late and I'm not sure what the bone of contention is...

Is it compromising on the athletic fee? Is it mediocre goals? Is it the Board of Regents? Is it the Athletic Department?

Look, I've got damn few years left on this earth and I like to see all athletics leap forward. But, there's been a lot of progress in the past few years and much of that was done sensibly. Have there been mistakes made by RV and the Athletic Department? You bet. Does the good outweigh the bad? It's no contest. So, why not put down the gun and let's enjoy orderly progress (as long as we continue to progress). You can still voice displeasure with hirings, attendance, lack of promotion, scheduling, etc. without constantly nagging.

I don't know that the athletics fee would fall in this category but sometimes there are tradeoffs to get other things accomplished. Reducing one request in order to get another unrelated approval happens all of the time. As long as the athletics budget has increased so that we are competitive with our conference mates...I'm happy. That certainly appears to be the case.

I also believe in setting realistic, achievable goals. When that goal is achieved then you set a higher obtainable mark. I believe that unobtainable goals defeat their purpose. However, making goals too easy accomplishes nothing. Every goal should be greater than, or at least equal to past accomplishments. I don't know what is expected of each sport but it seems that basketball got off easy. Contract consideration or not, give us a decent home non-conference schedule. Three NAIA teams is way beyond unacceptable.

Why the disdain for the BOR? They only act on administration proposals and from what I've seen all have been favorable. They don't propose legislation, They don't say, "I'm sorry, but you didn't request enough". I have, and will continue to be a strong supporter of our Board of Regents. C. Dan Smith has done an outstanding job of getting approvals for athletics. Let's not piss off the group that has done nothing but help us.

Lastly, I saw a post that gave me hope. UNT90 referred to attendance at the last game as the stadium being half-full rather than half-empty. He may be coming around.

Well said. Thank you for a rational approach.

[meangreener]

I came to the party late and I'm not sure what the bone of contention is...

Is it compromising on the athletic fee? Is it mediocre goals? Is it the Board of Regents? Is it the Athletic Department?

Look, I've got damn few years left on this earth and I like to see all athletics leap forward. But, there's been a lot of progress in the past few years and much of that was done sensibly. Have there been mistakes made by RV and the Athletic Department? You bet. Does the good outweigh the bad? It's no contest. So, why not put down the gun and let's enjoy orderly progress (as long as we continue to progress). You can still voice displeasure with hirings, attendance, lack of promotion, scheduling, etc. without constantly nagging.

I don't know that the athletics fee would fall in this category but sometimes there are tradeoffs to get other things accomplished. Reducing one request in order to get another unrelated approval happens all of the time. As long as the athletics budget has increased so that we are competitive with our conference mates...I'm happy. That certainly appears to be the case.

I also believe in setting realistic, achievable goals. When that goal is achieved then you set a higher obtainable mark. I believe that unobtainable goals defeat their purpose. However, making goals too easy accomplishes nothing. Every goal should be greater than, or at least equal to past accomplishments. I don't know what is expected of each sport but it seems that basketball got off easy. Contract consideration or not, give us a decent home non-conference schedule. Three NAIA teams is way beyond unacceptable.

Why the disdain for the BOR? They only act on administration proposals and from what I've seen all have been favorable. They don't propose legislation, They don't say, "I'm sorry, but you didn't request enough". I have, and will continue to be a strong supporter of our Board of Regents. C. Dan Smith has done an outstanding job of getting approvals for athletics. Let's not piss off the group that has done nothing but help us.

Lastly, I saw a post that gave me hope. UNT90 referred to attendance at the last game as the stadium being half-full rather than half-empty. He may be coming around.

Thanks for the level headed and well thought out response. I agree.

[MeanGreen61]

I came to the party late and I'm not sure what the bone of contention is...

Is it compromising on the athletic fee? Is it mediocre goals? Is it the Board of Regents? Is it the Athletic Department?

Look, I've got damn few years left on this earth and I like to see all athletics leap forward. But, there's been a lot of progress in the past few years and much of that was done sensibly. Have there been mistakes made by RV and the Athletic Department? You bet. Does the good outweigh the bad? It's no contest. So, why not put down the gun and let's enjoy orderly progress (as long as we continue to progress). You can still voice displeasure with hirings, attendance, lack of promotion, scheduling, etc. without constantly nagging.

I don't know that the athletics fee would fall in this category but sometimes there are tradeoffs to get other things accomplished. Reducing one request in order to get another unrelated approval happens all of the time. As long as the athletics budget has increased so that we are competitive with our conference mates...I'm happy. That certainly appears to be the case.

I also believe in setting realistic, achievable goals. When that goal is achieved then you set a higher obtainable mark. I believe that unobtainable goals defeat their purpose. However, making goals too easy accomplishes nothing. Every goal should be greater than, or at least equal to past accomplishments. I don't know what is expected of each sport but it seems that basketball got off easy. Contract consideration or not, give us a decent home non-conference schedule. Three NAIA teams is way beyond unacceptable.

Why the disdain for the BOR? They only act on administration proposals and from what I've seen all have been favorable. They don't propose legislation, They don't say, "I'm sorry, but you didn't request enough". I have, and will continue to be a strong supporter of our Board of Regents. C. Dan Smith has done an outstanding job of getting approvals for athletics. Let's not piss off the group that has done nothing but help us.

Lastly, I saw a post that gave me hope. UNT90 referred to attendance at the last game as the stadium being half-full rather than half-empty. He may be coming around.

Great post !

[JesseMartin]

I'm not crazy about the mediocre expectations either, but look . . . who are they for? Are they really being set for the team and coaches? No, they are for those who will be evaluating funding for athletics. Perhaps the expectations were intentionally set low so future committees don't say, "See? Athletics isn't achieving at the level they were supposed to achieve with this funding."

This brings up an interesting similar point...maybe the expectations were set low for THIS level of funding, so if they are met or exceeded, they have an excuse to increase funding..."Hey, they exceeded our goals with the $30M budget so that's good enough reason to increase it." May or may not be the case, but interesting to consider.

[VideoEagle]

Thanks. I suspect you have actually managed people before. At least you know the basic principles to get improvement.

[Greendylan]

Let's alumni all give at a level well within our comfort levels and not give a freakin' dime to the music program, the library system, Denton public transportation, the fitness center, the dining halls or the book stores, because we don't use those services. But the students? Screw 'em. Let's soak 'em for every miserable high interest loan dime they've got. If they or their parents don't like it? Screw 'em in the back door and send 'em down to Sam Houston State. This isn't a public service institution of higher learning we're running here!

As for athletics making the university a better university, I challenge anyone here to list for me in order, where they would want their child to go if the kid were offered full rides to the following options: Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar (no athletics), MIT (Division III), Harvard (FCS, not playoff eligible), Texas (BIG ASS $BILLION FBS), UNT (The hometown fave).

I'm with Thor on wherever he posted his little thing. I really enjoy what I get for my time and money at UNT. I never want to be a Texas or and Alabama. I like funding scholarships and watching our athletes graduate and go on to lucrative careers (and sometimes even become paying sponsors of this message board). I like knowing RV on a first name basis. I like having the means to get club seats at Apogee. I like knowing my fellow tailgaters, sharing beers and various charred carcasses of creatures who once roamed the earth.

We're a university first and foremost. A place that educates, and sends young adults into productive lives in the world, not a semi-pro sports franchise that acts as a check cashing service for a bunch of 18-year-old kids who just hope to lead a middle school honors band someday.

If we really want this thing to grow to a point where we can expect to go to bowls and the NCAAs every year, that responsibility really should lie on the alumni, not the student body. Alumni can choose whether to give and how much to give.

Forcing a unilateral fee on students, and insisting that it increase at a maximum level year after year after year without any input beyond a vote of students five years ago who knew they would never be subject to any fee is akin to most of the things that guys on the AM dial scream about every morning during drive-time. (I voted for the fee and paid it for one whopping semester)

I respect this attitude, but personally I just see things a little differently. First, I don't understand how sucking at some of the most visible endeavors a university undertakes (often in front of a regional or national audience) would make North Texas one step closer to being Oxford, MIT, or Harvard. As for UT, they would probably maintain a sterling academic reputation even if they were terrible at every major sport, but I hardly think they're in the same boat as North Texas when it comes to national, regional, state, or even local perception.

And that's what brings me to my next point--our peer group. I have ranted about this before, but I suppose it bears repeating. Our peer group is large (30,000+ student enrollment) state universities. When you place us in the context of that group, suddenly our stated athletic goals seem pedestrian at best. There are a few large state universities with such historically entrenched academic reputations that any athletic lull would hardly undermine their national standing (Texas, Michigan, Virginia, California, etc.). But the truth is that none of those schools ever DO suck at athletics. Sure, Virginia may not be a football powerhouse most seasons, but I remember how giddy all of us were at the thought of potentially upsetting them at basketball.

Ok, so we may never become UT or Berkeley any more than we will become a stuffy 900 year old English university. But, what about the other large state universities? I posted a list awhile back, and I'll repost it if necessary, but I challenge anyone on here to name five 35,000+ enrollment state universities that are clearly athletically inferior to the University of North Texas. How many of the schools in that group have not been ranked in any major sport in decades? Of course, we don't want to further distance ourselves from the Oxfords, MITs, and Harvards of the world, but how many of the aforementioned large state universities sacrificed their academics so much in order to achieve athletic success that they are now embarrassingly beneath us? Are there even two or three examples that fit that profile? In actuality, there seems to be a positive correlation between academic prestige and athletic success when considering large state universities.

Now, I know the immediate (and understandable) response here is to say that we aren't really peers with other large state universities because we have a smaller endowment and much less donor support than nearly all the others. That's true. But if we stratify our category that way, isn't that kind of like gerrymandering our peer group just to make us seem a little more impressive? That would be like someone saying, "Hey, everyone in my neighborhood has a nicer car than me, but that's ok. I have a pretty decent car for someone without much money in the bank, little income, and a shaky work history. So, even though girls in this neighborhood only like guys with awesome cars, I'm . . . um . . . doing ok, right?"

As for RV, I appreciate his willingness to engage with even your average boosters. Seriously, I'm amazed at how the man regularly responds to emails from absolutely everyone. But, if he no longer has time to shake my hand, answer my emails, and memorize my name because he's so busy schmoozing with a lineup of millionaire donors, well, then, that to me is an acceptable tradeoff.

[UNTFan23]

I respect this attitude, but personally I just see things a little differently. First, I don't understand how sucking at some of the most visible endeavors a university undertakes (often in front of a regional or national audience) would make North Texas one step closer to being Oxford, MIT, or Harvard. As for UT, they would probably maintain a sterling academic reputation even if they were terrible at every major sport, but I hardly think they're in the same boat as North Texas when it comes to national, regional, state, or even local perception.

And that's what brings me to my next point--our peer group. I have ranted about this before, but I suppose it bears repeating. Our peer group is large (30,000+ student enrollment) state universities. When you place us in the context of that group, suddenly our stated athletic goals seem pedestrian at best. There are a few large state universities with such historically entrenched academic reputations that any athletic lull would hardly undermine their national standing (Texas, Michigan, Virginia, California, etc.). But the truth is that none of those schools ever DO suck at athletics. Sure, Virginia may not be a football powerhouse most seasons, but I remember how giddy all of us were at the thought of potentially upsetting them at basketball.

Ok, so we may never become UT or Berkeley any more than we will become a stuffy 900 year old English university. But, what about the other large state universities? I posted a list awhile back, and I'll repost it if necessary, but I challenge anyone on here to name five 35,000+ enrollment state universities that are clearly athletically inferior to the University of North Texas. How many of the schools in that group have not been ranked in any major sport in decades? Of course, we don't want to further distance ourselves from the Oxfords, MITs, and Harvards of the world, but how many of the aforementioned large state universities sacrificed their academics so much in order to achieve athletic success that they are now embarrassingly beneath us? Are there even two or three examples that fit that profile? In actuality, there seems to be a positive correlation between academic prestige and athletic success when considering large state universities.

Now, I know the immediate (and understandable) response here is to say that we aren't really peers with other large state universities because we have a smaller endowment and much less donor support than nearly all the others. That's true. But if we stratify our category that way, isn't that kind of like gerrymandering our peer group just to make us seem a little more impressive? That would be like someone saying, "Hey, everyone in my neighborhood has a nicer car than me, but that's ok. I have a pretty decent car for someone without much money in the bank, little income, and a shaky work history. So, even though girls in this neighborhood only like guys with awesome cars, I'm . . . um . . . doing ok, right?"

As for RV, I appreciate his willingness to engage with even your average boosters. Seriously, I'm amazed at how the man regularly responds to emails from absolutely everyone. But, if he no longer has time to shake my hand, answer my emails, and memorize my name because he's so busy schmoozing with a lineup of millionaire donors, well, then, that to me is an acceptable tradeoff.

You win the thread.

[KingDL1]

Thanks. I suspect you have actually managed people before. At least you know the basic principles to get improvement.

There is nothing wrong with the chart, but for a University with 36,000+ students and having a football program started 100 years ago I find the goals stated by the BOR as less than relevant, and the attainable goals embarrassingly low and easily attainable. Plenty of smaller public schools have pasted UNT in recent years, it would seem that much higher goals are attainable.

Edited September 20, 2013 by KingDL1

[forevereagle]

Ok, so we may never become UT or Berkeley any more than we will become a stuffy 900 year old English university. But, what about the other large state universities? I posted a list awhile back, and I'll repost it if necessary, but I challenge anyone on here to name five 35,000+ enrollment state universities that are clearly athletically inferior to the University of North Texas. How many of the schools in that group have not been ranked in any major sport in decades? Of course, we don't want to further distance ourselves from the Oxfords, MITs, and Harvards of the world, but how many of the aforementioned large state universities sacrificed their academics so much in order to achieve athletic success that they are now embarrassingly beneath us? Are there even two or three examples that fit that profile? In actuality, there seems to be a positive correlation between academic prestige and athletic success when considering large state universities.

FIU and FAU are large universities that are in our "peer group" that we are better than that I can name off the top of my head.

How many people can name 10 large universities that are not UT, A&M, etc.? Here is a list of the top 120 universities by enrollment in 2011. If we are looking at just enrollment, we are in decent shape on this list. If we are using other criteria, maybe not as good but I don't have time to go through and sort out the schools that we wouldn't compare with (for-profit, CCs, etc.). With a quick look, it seems like we are likely in the lower middle on this list. While that isn't something we should be satisfied with, we are not in as bad a shape as some. In looking at the list, there are at least 5 that we can claim that we are better than.

[KingDL1]

FIU and FAU are large universities that are in our "peer group" that we are better than that I can name off the top of my head.

How many people can name 10 large universities that are not UT, A&M, etc.? Here is a list of the top 120 universities by enrollment in 2011. If we are looking at just enrollment, we are in decent shape on this list. If we are using other criteria, maybe not as good but I don't have time to go through and sort out the schools that we wouldn't compare with (for-profit, CCs, etc.). With a quick look, it seems like we are likely in the lower middle on this list. While that isn't something we should be satisfied with, we are not in as bad a shape as some. In looking at the list, there are at least 5 that we can claim that we are better than.

Did you take out all the tech schools, Community Colleges, online schools, and Basketball schools plus programs that have had a football team for less than a generation?

[MeanGreenWithEnvy]

Now that I'm off the clock, I'm going to chime in with a different take on this situation.

This is GMG. It's all Mean Green Athletics, all the time. In focusing on the Regents and focusing on the President and what they're doing or not doing about athletics, I believe you're missing the bigger picture of the university as an institution, of which athletics is one part. It's natural to focus only on the athletics piece here on GMG because that's what this community is focused on. For the Regents and the President, though, the focus is much broader. For the President, it's the whole institution. For the Regents, it's UNT, UNT Dallas, UNT HSC, and, coming soon, the UNT College of Law.

These are not good times in higher education. The current budget is crap, projections for budgets in the immediate future are crap, and yet we are asked to do more with less to somehow not just make it all work, but to make it all a completely awesome learning experience. Departments can't replace faculty who retire because there's no money to do it. The library has to curtail the acquisition of new research resources and cut current research resources because, for a university of our size, we have the dumbest funding model for our libraries that you could possibly have in higher ed, and the cartel pricing of these resources should be a felony. This isn't an exhaustive list, but rather the highlights (lowlights?) of some of our issues. It all goes back to not having the money to properly do things, including athletics. If you want to look to the source of that problem, you have to look at enrollment.

Yes, our enrollment numbers are higher than ever. They're also under the forecasted numbers. Like most public universities in Texas not named UT and A&M, most of our budget comes from tuition and fees. My belief is that tuition and fees are already at such a level that it is impacting our potential enrollment. Basically, tuition and fees are so high that prospective students that we could and should be enrolling are choosing community colleges or online alternatives. Student loans being tightened and, at this point, being not terribly different from sharecropping, is also a big factor. These are by no means problems unique to UNT, but they are among our biggest challenges.

With all of the issues the Regents and the President have to deal with that are more central to the mission of the university, I don't see the athletics fee being increased any time soon. We're not going to help our enrollment numbers by making the cost of a UNT education more expensive. I do think that the Regents are an empirically minded group, hence the goals they set out. In my estimation, those are the benchmarks they're going to look toward to green light fee increases. We need to do the best we can with what we have, and we haven't done that yet. If we start doing better, I think you'll see approval for increasing the athletics fee.

[PlummMeanGreen]

Just curious but what are UNT's projected enrollment numbers in the future as compared to all others projections (besides UT-Austin and TAMU).

We know our present enrollment before the 12 day sit in class of which after that day they become official, but is there a link of the unofficial

numbers of the other Texas public universities beside the 2 mentioned at the top?

GMG!

[Harry]

Very thoughtful and accurate post MGWE. There is a very large movement of good students and families who are using the community college system to lower the overall college debt burden. They transfer after two years and the end they still get the same degree from the 4-year institution.

[oldguystudent]

Very thoughtful and accurate post MGWE. There is a very large movement of good students and families who are using the community college system to lower the overall college debt burden. They transfer after two years and the end they still get the same degree from the 4-year institution.

And why shouldn't they? Top preference for my kids is TAMS. Should she not make it, she's completely sold on the community college idea as opposed to two extra years of debt just so she can associate with a brand name when she's 18. Same classes, same professors. You cannot make a compelling argument as to why I should pay tens upon tens of thousands of dollars so she can take those same classes with those same professors, just at a bigger campus with scarce parking and astronomically higher housing.

[forevereagle]

Did you take out all the tech schools, Community Colleges, online schools, and Basketball schools plus programs that have had a football team for less than a generation?

Did you read my post?