untjim1995

FFR, I totally agree with not scheduling these teams. If you are going to get a check, schedule a game against a team like Arkansas or Tech or something like that and then just play 11 games. I just can't imagine how ridiculous a UT fan must feel when they pay $95 to watch the Longhorns play Florida Interntaional. What a colossal waste of time and money most of the time. Sure, Arkansas State might play you close, but then you leave the stadium thinking that your team sucks, not that the visiting team showed lots of heart. Probably serves them right, but when someone gladly spends that much money to watch the lions eat the Christians, you really wonder how much "governance" and "competition" that the NCAA cares about, not to mention the UTs, OUs, LSUs of the world. ust end the farce--let them play against each other and form their own level of play--call it NFL-lite if you want to, because that is all it really is at Alabama, Florida, USC, etc. I know that Boise State and TCU are the outliers here, but they get screwed over anyway, so they all might as well just continue to play in a division of team that they already compete with or get over their AD budgets up tothe Super-level that I speak of. I think everyone thinks of a newy created division as another i-aa (FCS) deal, but their is MUCH more support for non-AQ teams and even low-level BCS schools that would still create enough interest and support amongst fans and alumni. Imagine Baylor playing TCU, UNT playing UTEP, and La Tech playing ULL in conference games that mean something for either bowl slots, or more preferably, playoff positioning. Let the BCS schools keep those bowl games and the new division can just own December with the interest of a playoff that would create interest and would be much more competitive. We can cry all we want about fairness and that the NCAA/Congress should step in, but that is equivalent to wanting peace on earth. There is just too much money on their side, too many legislators who come from those schools who will not pass meaningful change, and way too much interest from the NCAA to protect the status quo. I guess it all fits into my belief that getting UNT into a conference/system that would benefit our alumni, programs, and the university would make me thrilled. Meaning simply that being in a conference with teams that are located within Texas and surrounding states and having a system in play to win a national championship would mean so much to me. Where things are right now, we are just about at the opposite end of the spectrum, and I don't believe it will ever change unless a major transformation in how college football is configured occurs.

Just for a point of reference--Texas' football revenues have more than QUADRUPLED under Mack Brown. In 1997, they brought in $21.3MM. IN 2008, that figured was $87.5MM. I can only imagine that 2009 revenue will be even higher because of success, BCS Championship appearance, and another full year of sold-out DKR. This is why I really wouldn't mind there being separate divisions for football. No, that doesn't mean we now compete with SFA and Nicholls State again. But it means that if your AD budget is more than $50MM, then you have a separate level of competition than those whose AD budget is between $10MM and 50MM. Take those top 60 teams and put them in the Super League and then take the next 60 and put them in the AAA-version of college football. That would still give us teams to compete with and succeed against that we consider peers. I know that the bigger schools would get most of the attention, but I can argue that they already do. We would all still follow UNT when we play La Tech or Troy or UTEP. If we want to play a game against those teams, then go ahead. I just think that the current definition of Division 1-A is to loose. UT, A&M, OU, and others of that ilk just have way more resources than those of us in the SBC, CUSA, MAC, or the WAC.

probably not...

No doubt--but I guess the question is if they traded places, would TCU and Baylor be in opposite positions in their leagues within 3 years or 5 years? I just think Baylor, which was a very good program in the old SWC, has been absolutely beaten into submission in the Big XII because the competition has been so strong. TCU, which was a mediocre-to bad SWC program, has seen its program soar in the different conferences they have been a part of over the last 14 years because they were competing against schools that they more compatible. If TCU had started in the Big XII and Baylor been in the other conferences that TCU was in, then I suspect that these two would be in opposite places today. That's my point--I think Baylor just hides behind the Big XII $$$ skirt because they don't have to do ANYTHING to pay for their Athletic Department. But in the end, I think TCU's success helps the school's image more, which increases donations and enrollment, whereas Baylor gets lots of $$$, but it has to have an effect on support from alumni and enrollment that could blossom if they had more success in football. Its amazing that this all comes down to football success, but the Flutie-effect has changed admissions for years and I think Baylor has sold out.

What really amazes me here is the hypocrisy of Baylor. I guess the money that they get for being a punching bag for the state schools in the Big XII is worth the $6million in bowl money and the attendance that those schools' fans bring to Waco. What's funny, though, is that almost every TCU fan you will meet would do just about anything to be in the Big XII instead of Baylor. I am just not so sure that if they traded places that Baylor wouldn't be at the top of the MWC and that TCU wouldn't be in the cellar within 3 years if that change was made. It is funny how TCU looked down at being in a conference with SMU and Rice, yet Baylor does the same thing to them. But if they would stop looking down their noses at each other--and some other state schools in Texas--they could actually build themsleves one heck of a regional conference that could have several bowl tie-ins in the Southwest. But again, Baylor gets the $$$ and the losses, TCU get the wins and some $$. I guess the real question is which setup is more preferable to fans, team, athletic department, and the university?

Very true--both can start there. I just think that the BCS money is the biggest gain here, though, not positioning themselves for next year. Because even if both are in top five next year, it will take one loss to wipe out any dreams of those BCS $$ again.

Don't fool yourself--they want the money more. If they didn't, Gary Patterson would be all about the playoff system over the current bowl system. Money rules here.

Since we LOST to TWU during the preseason, I am going to assume that games like yesterday will happen fairly regularly this year. I still can't believe we would lose ANYTHING to TWU in sports. I guess I should be thankful they don't have a football team--some of their women could probably push around our defense with lots of success...

Cincy would have gone as the AQ-BCS winner of the Big East. Boise State would have been left out.

yes

Well, when Sam Houston rolls in here next season instead of K-State, his chances of getting one win increased--slightly.

Yeah, I mean all of those Rice fans and UH fans have ALWAYS supported their team big-time. We could really learn from those fans!! How 'bout the way they supported the Oilers, too!!

If the AD gives Dodge a fifth year, it better be because he won 7 games and received an extension. If you all think recruiting is in danger now, it will really tank if we give Dodge a fifth year without an extension. No one would come here under the circumstance of not knowing who the coach will be in 2012. Next year is really it--we either go to a bowl or we get a new coach. Its the silver lining to this thing. And if Dodge gets a 5th season with anything below 7 wins from our university, then you really have to ask yourself if this all is really worth your time, energy, and most importantly, your money. Actually, it may not even be worth it all NOW.

I agree with you, but the question is where do you find the money to get us out of this situation NOW, as in TODAY? Its the chicken and egg deal--which comes first? If we had money, we wouldn't have Dodge. The alumni don't care about the university's athletic program, except for a hearty few. They have heard for decades how our football team isn't worth following, that it is uncool to even care about the team, and even worse to actually go to a game. Besides, Texas, A&M, Tech, and OU all play each other in the only conference that counts--this is the mindset that most college football fans around here believe in and it how the media covers the sport--excpet that TCU and SMU get coverage because of their hometown media coverage. The good news is that the new stadium will at least help a coach consider recruiting some kids that would never consider playing at Fouts, which is what most of the Denton ISD kids think. The even better news is that the student body that has gone through UNT since 2000 seems much different from the student body of the previous years. There is undeniably more school spirit than ever before--granted anything above zero is improvement--and I do believe that the student body of the 2000s will move up and actually support the program at a good level. The issue is that the big donors probably won't show up for another decade or two, as most big donors at other universities are over the age of 50. The bigger issue here is that when your local competition can pay a coach over $2 million a year and you can barely pay $250K and cannot afford to buyout more than one year of that $250k salary, this is the hard reality of where we are as a university, athletic department, and football program. It will get better, but it probably won't be for a looooonnnngggg time.

I do believe that Todd Dodge will be the head coach here for 2010. I believe the number one reason for that is money. But after that, I believe that RV will look at this year and say we made the improvement competitively that he expected to see. Remember, his words on this season were to see us get back to being competitive in our games. I can't say I blame him, either, since in 2008, our games were basically over by the end of the first half. So, in reality, he has gotten his wish, even if we only win 2 games. He even can use that line as a reason to say that Dodge will be back. It will also give RV a full year to prepare a list of coaches that will be available and will come here for a salary of around $350-$400K, which is my guess for what the next coach will sign for, including TDodge if he turns this around next year. For Dodge to get that extension next year, though, he must win 7 games and make it to a bowl--unless they are all full. I believe that his OC will get fired this year, but I also think it won't matter because TD is the real OC anyhow. But, in reality, Dodge has his son back as a sophomore, a stud running back, solid receiving options, and a pretty solid OLine. Most of the defense will be back and another year of DeLoach's coaching will make it better, just as it did when he was here under DD after a few years on staff. The biggest addition, though, for next year to be a huge success is not with the staff or with the players on offense or defense. We have got to find a legitimate kicker--one who can kick XPs, FGs beyond 30 yards, and can kickoff better than Charlie Brown in the Peanuts cartoon. It just costs the rest of you team so much if your kicking game is bad, so the biggest upgrade needs to be with Special Teams, with extra emphasis on the kicker. The schedule next year is tougher, although I HIGHLY DOUBT that KSU ever plays here, but I think the SBC play will determine if he gets the extension or gets fired. I would imagine it would be a win in 1 game OOC next year and 6 wins in SBC play or its over. In the end, though, although I believe Dodge will be back next year, it will also be his last. I just can't see a team going from 2 wins to 7 wins with the same coach and system that has failed badly before. But, as for the one thing that matters most, the financial benefit to the university and the AD will give Dodge 2010--you can take it to the bank.

How you got into this school amazes me...

Boise State has had so many more resources thatn UNT ever has had, it isn't even funny. They have a good-sized city all to themselves, as well as a state that wanted to support a winner. Plus, Boise State's stadium was a good size, easily expandable, and their city made itself a bowl destination. All of these resources basically combined to make BSU a monster--they city and university support the school with money and resources. Their conference recognized that a bowl game would be a good fit for Boise's stadium. All of that helps you schedule favorably. You start winning, going to bowl games, and recruiting picks up. Then, once you have it built up, you take on big-time programs and compete mightily with them because you have good coaches and consistent support. UNT has had a small city (both in population and especially in mindedness) to deal with, have been practically ignored by the Metroplex, and most of the state follows UT, A&M, Tech, OU, OSU, Arkansas, Baylor, and every once in a while, TCU, SMU, and UH. UNT students and alumni have had almost zero connection to the school, much less the football team for ever. This is even talking about the fact that UNT has had the WORST STADIUM to play in and watch a game at in Division 1. Hell, Fouts was a BAD 1-AA stadium. Its just not close.

TI Green--you and I seem to see things very similarly. I, too, believe the NCAA will stay away from a playoff until finally being forced to do it. When that happens, I can almost guarantee a shift like the one I listed would occur. Those big schools are not going to share anything if they can get away with it, which is why I expect an expanded MWC becoming an AQ BCS conference would be the easiest route to take. Yes, you share more, but you virtually lock up any "outsiders" from crashing the party ever again.

Army 41 UNT--20

Never mind--I will blame all of those mentioned.

That is a weak excuse--a score can still be given, even as a last second mention, without video, especially as the sportscast ends. Nothing, though? Someone has to answer this for me, or at least attempt to.

http://%20http://rebelnation.reviewjournal.com/blogs/from-the-editors-desk/coach-fran-should-be-the-man-for-unlvs-head-coaching-job It appears that one of our mentioned preferred replacement possibilities has another school (UNLV) very interested

Or the better lesson might be to not let the governor and his buddy that he placed as the university president pick the new head coach without interviewing anyone else just becasue he coached his kids when they were in school as OLinemen

I enjoy your positive posst about UNT, but you missed big-time on this one. Turner Gill will be at a big-time school in the next year. He has performed a miracle at a place that was as bad as we are now. There is a reason many think Auburn made the worst decision possible by passing him over for Gene Chizik. Buffalo will not get a better replacement than Turner Gill in my opinion. Maybe someone can keep up his program, but he is up there on the list for greatest program turnarounds in history.

That was my first game at the Stage in about 16 years. The need for a new arena is so evident, so I won't go on about it. Just glad UTA is finally getting an actual arena for basketball. Great game and the crowd was defintely into it big time. Why the private schools cannot see this on any level is completely beyond me, but it is what it is. After a great game, between two large universities in the Metroplex that ended around 10pm, I expected to see some coverage or a mention on ANY of the 4 networks during their sports reports. Nothing, nada, zilch. It really frustrates me--when TCU and SMU play each other, no matter their record, they get TV coverage. You can't say that the two teams are spares either, because they have both been to the NCAA tournament in the recent years, unlike the two privates. Heck, we have won 20+ games for the last 3 years. Maybe I missed something on the sports coverage--very possible, but I tried to watch all four and saw no footage, nor heard a mention from Hansen, Scruggs, Laufenberg, or Doocy. I just don't get it.