untjim1995
-
Posts
9,425 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
29 -
Points
24,670 [ Donate ]
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
GoMeanGreen.com
Posts posted by untjim1995
-
-
No, but it is the answer to most of our problems. The stadium is another answer.
And I'd venture to say lowly Baylor, just by association with the Big12, still gets more revenue and media than TCU in all it's recent prime.
Think Baylor is hurting? Not only did they receive more payout in BCS money than TCU or Boise did last year, 0-12 Washington received more than either of those two. Again, where is it better to be--bottom of BCS or top of non-BCS? Our hearts say the non-BCS becasue we like the little guy. Our heads know the answer, though. $$$$ talk--it makes it so much easier for a Baylor, when they do get a good coach, to succeed because they know that the resources they get is far better than any of the non-BCS. That is why Briles left UH.
-
No --unless the Big East splits... way to large now (16 teams) . Besides... Memphis is thriving in basketball as it is now... Did Lousville come out ahead by moving??
--- Football.. they would be better off to schedule great non-confernece games (if possible) and do well in CUSA. They have the name recognition because of basketball.
--- I do expect any big shake-up that may occur to start with the Big East splitting into a football group and a non-football group.. Who knows when it might occur.... soon or many years from now.
Louisville, came out ok, I think. I mean, they get BCS money for football, they have gone to a BCS bowl game, and they get in one of the most premier hoops leagues for both men and women that produces great revenues. Its somewhat possible that they are just a bit better now than when they were in CUSA. (SARCASM)
-
I'll be sure to print it out. My toliet tissue problems will be solved for at least one wipe. That is the only thing your knowledge on NT football, hell anything football related, would be worth.
I am not a huge fan of TFLF, but doesn't this cross the line on the personal attack?
-
We could find out in about 7 months.
Something tells me that if Dodge wins at least two games, that he will still be the coach here. Just my opinion, though.
-
One of the best con-men coaches of all time in my opinion. He could sell ice to Eskimos --he was that charismatic. Couldn't outcoach your below-average YMCA coach for under-6 year olds. Seriously, it was one thing to lose by 75 at Maryland, another to just get absolutely crushed against Big West and SBC teams twice a week. There are many solid comparisons you can make between he and Dodge on the football side of things. Both got alot of excitment generated for their teams and got much imprioved facilities, but the actual team perfromance was much worse than anyone could have dreamed.
-
1-11
I just can't see us competing yet with any of the teams on the schedule beyond WKU and Army, so I will have UNT split in those two games. Our lines are weak (even if they are supposedly improving) and the QB is fragile and inexperienced (BTW, his backups are inexperienced, too). My gut says neither Todd nor Riley will be here after this year.
If, however, UNT was to split its opening 4 games, they could be at 4-5 wins at the end of the year, but, again, I just don't see how us doing that.
-
I'd think WKU, MTSU, and Troy would all be above us yes. Especially the Hilltoppers if Memphis is still in CUSA. The Tigers are the flagship school of the league, and they'll want someone who helps basketball.
La Tech would be in the conversation, as well.
-
"At least South Florida had the benefit of conference membership (CUSA) as did FAU."
This is why I hate hearing about USF being a team that "flew" by us. When they decided to start their program in, USF knew that once D-1A status was reached, they already had secured membership in the conference that they played all of their sports in--CUSA. They also had a brand new stadium in their city that needed to get teams to play other than the local NFL team. Plus, they had no other teams in other conferences that surrounded Tampa that could blackball them from joining. This isn't even counting the fact that talent-rich Florida only had 5 D-1A teams when they moved up, including none in that large metropolis.
In every scenario just mentioned, USF had huge advantages BEFORE they were even D-1 than UNT has ever had.
Now, FAU and Troy are much better examples of schools that are passing us by, as well as the probable jump UTSA will make when their program gets running. I doubt very seriously that SMU will have the interest to blackball them like they have UNT should CUSA have an interest in that large market--which they undoubtedly will.
-
Geography is a major factor. When we start playing SMUt regularly in a couple years they will become our hated rivals even more than now. They probably won't see it that way and would list TCU as main rival. TCU fans would disagree with that label.
No, TCU fans in Ft. Worth would completely agree. That rivalry runs pretty heated, especailly amongst the older alumni who remember how badly SMU used to pund TCU in the 70's and 80's.
-
Here are my thoughts on a very interesting topic, but involving a Baylor vs. UNT comparison. I know that the comparison is supposed to be with us in the SBC as the role of Baylor, but the view that Baylor should ever move out of the Big XII will never occur becasue of the following listing.
Pros for being Baylor:
1. Money--lots of it and its mostly guaranteed. No downside--only gets higher if the Big XII gets two teams in the BCS games or if you make a bowl game and get additional monies from the game.
2. Prestige--Being in a BCS conference alone adds much more credibility than anyone can challenge. For example, everyone at TCU would die to get into a AQ-BCS league that played local schools. As a matter of fact, Baylor made more bowl money last year by being in the BCS than TCU made for beating Boise State and finishing in the Top Ten. That alone still drives me crazy, but it makes the point.
3. Image--Both in the state and in the national media, Baylor gets more attention just because of who they play in conference. Recruits who like a smaller school and can get playing time early would probably feel like Baylor's situation could be a great fit.
Cons for being Baylor:
1. Loser Mentality--this description is awfully hard to get rid of. As a matter of fact, their fans are so excited because last year they beat A&M and went 4-8. That's the tough part about playing in the Big XII South every year.
2. Apathy--alumni and administration always have the crutch to lean on and say, "Hey, we can't beat OU, Texas, Nebraska, etc..so it really isn't a big deal if we go 3-9 every year."
For obvious reasons, I won't go into the breakdown of being UNT and in the SBC--the Pros are almost non-existent when compared to anyone else in Texas. I would take their place or anyone in CUSA for that matter in a heartbeat. The real question I have is why the non AQ-BCS schools in Texas do not want to be aligned with UNT in a conference still to this day? I understand the past with the SWC, butI just don't get why that view is still in play when UTEP is easily accepted. I just don't get it.
-
The issues raised here are too far reaching to simply blame Todd Dodge. He was only responsible for one of the four classes figured into the score - although that class is ever-shrinking as we saw again this week. The one constant between the Darrell Dickey and Todd Dodge eras is the leadership of the athletic department. But, because we are doing well in the sports no one watches and which never hope to gain a dime for the department, criticism of the man in charge is off limits.
Some posters will blame the players. This, of course, is stupid because athletes are often let in under less stringent standards than the general student population. So, in many cases, they weren't academically prepared. Athletic departments look past this academic readiness issue, of course, because they believe in the upside of the gamble. It's part of the con game of college athletics - we pretend that because you can play a sport, you can also pass college level classes. We lower the bar, and if you become a superstar, we look like geniuses.
So, across the country, North Texas included, there are these special academic programs, tutors, and watered-down degree programs designed to help these kids get by. But, the bottom line is simple: if a kid has no study skills by the time he or she is 18 or 19 years old, those skills are not going to magically appear overnight. And, if he or she doesn't see the value of it, no amount of "mentoring" or "tutoring" will change it.
At our alma mater, this is compounded even moreso by the fact that we aren't getting the top athletes in the classroom or on the field. Because of our constant and long term disarray in the adminstration, Board, and athletic department regarding what to actually do with the football program (fund and support it fully or not?), we are reduced to taking flyers on coaches, who then must take flyers on many players
In the end, there's no one to fire. The people at the top pf the food chain in Denton wouldn't hire quality replacements anyway. They never have. As alumni, we just simply live with the excuses we've come to know and despise pretty much from the day we set foot on campus. Wherever it is you're going, Go Mean Green...because we don't know, and we know you don't know. But, Go nonetheless.
TFLF,
Great post--maybe the most accurate post I have read in a long time regarding our cycle of repitition at UNT regarding football. Sometimes, I wonder why this school even keeps football around at this level. So little support--both in dollars and in fanbase--make the old nestor views very difficult to beat. If this stadium gets built by 2012, then I will truly believe that we want to stay at the FBS level. But, if it doesn't, I fear that this program won't be around down the road.
I think sometimes we all fool ourselves into believeing that the student body voted for big changes with the stadium vote in the fall, but I think the overwhelming number of people who didn't vote in the election fall more in line with the NO voter than the YES voter. Now, that is not a reason for the fee to be overturned, but it does speak to the fact that the stadium still faces a lot of hurdles before we can get this going. This isn't even considering the fact that fundraising hasn't exactly boomed, either. Tthe only way that this program will ever be anything other than a Bottom 20 Team is if the administration and BOR decide that the "flyer" approach for a head coach is not the way to go, but instead they go out and get a Coach Fry-type guy with skins on the wall. Otherwise, you will continue to get coordinators from non-BCS schools and HS head coaches here at UNT.
-
Again, they can reassign him to a position anywhere in the department for less pay. They don't have to fire him outright. Re-read the contract.
I haven't read the contract, so that is interesting to say the least. But will they do it? And what would the pay be? Any thoughts on this?
-
I do think he has a short list, but I think it is only to use if Dodge resigns or takes a job at another school (i.e., position coach or coordinator) Lets face it--there is just no way that UNT can afford to pay two coaches at the same time (even if Dodge was reassigned). Dodge will get year 4 if he wants it--even if he goes winless. Heck, if some of the reports are true about the topic of paying coaches, we are still paying Dickey some dollars, which is probably why Dodge was the perfect candidate for the athletic department in 2007. My hopes are twofold for 2009: 1.) We end up overacheiving and Dodge stays, which seems close to miraculous at this point (winning 4+ games) or 2.)We only win a game or two and Dodge resigns to go back to HS or go become a position coach at some other college. And, as far as RV losing his job, I have no idea how many years he has left on his contract, but it seems far-fetched to think he will be gone after all of the improvement we have seen overall for the department during his tenure.
-
Smut home attendance for selected games the past couple seasons:
USM = 13,020
Mem = 18,224
Hou = 18,972
Tulsa = 15,324
UNT = 20,517
UCF = 10,271
Rice = 13,902
Would an AD really say no to more fans in the stadium?
NT80,
I am not trying to rile you up here, but please explain to me why these schools aren't playing us and haven't played us frequently since we moved up. Yes, SMU has us on the schedule in 2014 (I think), and we have a game against Rice scheduled, but it seems that the attendance isn't the driver here. Beating UNT to most of their fanbase is not a big win, but losing to us is a huge loss. Otherwise, we would always have one of them on our schedule. I am not counting any Texas Big XII schools because the advantage they have is huge and they can afford to play us, although Tech and Baylor won't play us anytime soon because of the pain those losses caused to their team and alumni. Apparently, TCU wants nothing to do with scheduling UNT again because they see no good from it. UH, UTEP, and Rice could use the attendance boost, too. But, they don't schedule UNT much, even though we want to play them often.
I still believe that our way in the current environment of FBS football is through an improving Sunbelt and by continuing to play (and actually defeat) Tulsa, La Tech, Army, Navy, and other somewhat notable teams in OOC, while also making it to bowl games. The new stadium will help with that immensely. But I don't believe that the other Texas schools that are mid-majors will do us in favors. Our best hope is to just get better than them--and that is very doable, but it will take a long time from where we are right now. But, at that point, UNT would get to be the chooser in who to play in OOC--or even better, to choose whether to join a confernece that includes some of those old SWC has-beens that cling to their past.
-
Travel expenses to Marshall, East Carolina, Wyoming, or Denton? Travel for fans to away game the same. Save $$$ on conference game road trips, more home fans at opponent stadiums.
Haven't the costs to travel to and from Denton always been cheaper than to the other outposts you mentioned? Since we moved back up to D-IA status, we have played SMU twice, TCU three times, Rice and UH once, and UTEP none. We won one time against these in-state schools, so us beating them can't be a reason that we don't play them regularly. The real reasons are exactly why we will never be in a conference with these schools--their administration and fans don't want anything to do with having us in a conference with them. That is why our only paths to the future in I-A involve a SBC that continues to get stronger over the next few decades or by getting an E-WAC division going. It will not involve any current FBS schools in Texas, IMHO.
-
Here's a good link you may want to put in your favorites. It's shows the 2010 verbals so far. Many of this area's best are already committed...again:
http://www.texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&..._well_id=2#post
It's not unexpected that OU, LSU, and Michigan already have area players aboard, but middle-of-the-road teams like Tulsa, Kansas, and Missouri also already have area players verballed as well. Texas, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M each have a players from the Denton schools already committed. Arkansas has an offensive lineman from Pilot Point committed.
Baylor's got 3 early; Rice 2, SMU 4; TCU and Houston already have 5 each. Of the bigger Texas schools, the Longhorns are almost done with 21 verbals - all from Texas. A&M has 16, 13 from Texas and 3 from Louisiana. Texas Tech has 7, including a DE from Southlake.
I trust we have offers on the table, but are just being bypassed before we go into stealth mode in December?
In all, 84 commitments from Texas preps have already been made. My guess is that most of them are on the state's Top 100 list, otherwise they wouldn't be sought after so soon.
I enjoy reading your posts--but after I read them, more often than not, I really do believe that UNT will never give you what you expect as a fan. Look, you talk about raising expectations, but in the last 14 years of the program, we have had exactly 3 winning seasons as a D-1 school. We can't even get a stadium built without jumping through about 10 rings of fire. We cannot afford to hire a really good coach--we always have to take a flier (i.e. Parker, Simon, Dickey, and Dodge). None of those coaches had any college head-coaching experience. I realize college coordinators make the leap often, but often they don't work out as head coaches. So we get what we can afford. Rice gets Bailiff, SMU gets Jones, Tulsa gets Graham, and UTEP got Price. Places like Tulsa, SMU, Rice, and UTEP want to have their football programs succeed--we want music and arts to succeed (See Phillip Young types). I understand your frustration, but I just wonder why you keep banging your head so hard against the wall on the subject of TDodge and the program's flaws. Until we get that new stadium built and can get financial support to pay for a good coaching staff, we will be a program that will be stuck in SBC land. With Fouts getting worse every day, with a putrid record of late, and with the coach having a few more years on the contract, as well as the previous one, too, the only hope is that Dodge finds success with his new QB. Recruits and their families aren't stupid. Its the whole thing that stinks--and until someone up at the top decides that we need to support and fund a better athletic program than fine arts and music, then our fortunes could change. But since that has never happened, I wouldn't hold my breath.
-
I don't see UH as anything other than a lateral move. Big?12 or SEC would be different but Houston has as many funding and attendance issues as UNT does, if not more.
I respectfully disagree. UH is a much better conference, has much better media coverage, and has a much higher budget and donors. They have rivals that want to play them and be in a conference with them. UNT has none of these and probably won't even come close for some time. UH also will probably get to be a Tier 1 University. I really am envious of them when compared to our situation. IF RV is interested and UH is interested, that would be a very good fit for both.
-
no, wku will not raise our profile. i follow college basketball as much as regular sports fans but i can not tell you who else is in the wcc or where gonzaga is located, or care. they did not raise the profile of any schools in their conferencde. wku is just another fodder team in the way of the bigger conference schools. we have to elevate our conference level.
Gonzaga plays in the WCC with: San Diego, Portland, St. Mary's, Pepperdine, San Francisco, Loyola Maymount, and Santa Clara. Over the years, with Portland being the exception, all of the other teams in that conference have made the tournament and have had some level of success. But, again, most casual hoops fans who only follow the conferences that they "know" (BCS or close-to-home conferences), so I can understand how you feel. The SBC is a good league for hoops, better than many others, but WKU doesn't make people from all over the Metroplex flock to the Pit for a home game against them. But, even if we were in CUSA, I doubt very seriously that a game against Memphis would sell out because college hoops just doesn't matter much here in DFW--and it never has, which is really too bad. College hoops is my favorite sport, just ahead of college football. Luckily, college hoops knows how to crown a champ, unlike football.
-
Interesting pricing for their season tickets--6 games. I am not sure if you also have to donate first to get these prices or if this is the all-in-one price for their tickets. It would seem to be the latter, but here goes:
Stadium Club $1100/seat
Mustang Club Sideline $280/seat
Sideline Reserved West $150/seat
Sideline Reserved East $120/seat
Family Section $72/seat
End Zone Reserved $72/seat
I wonder if they are giving a discount for the last two seating options for season-ticket buyers versus just paying at the time you walk up. Anyway, it all interests me because if we get our new stadium, what will our prices be? Will the majority of fans pay a much higher price to come there and watch SBC games?
-
Wishful thinking on my part at the present, but how bout a mostly TX division of Conference USA & everybody else: UNT, SMU, TCU Tulsa, La Tech, UTEP. I would hope we would move on, and want to go to a conference with established programs. After all, that is what we believe can happen. We should have bigger aspirations then to have UTSA or even Texas St. as rivals, don't see how playing shows our program is growing. After all, we have been in this game a lot longer than either. Come on guys, we need to think bigger & better!
There is only problem to your thinking bigger and better than playing in a conference with UTSA and TSU: Those other Texas colleges look at UNT the exact same way that we look at UTSA or TSU, especially the Metrpolex teams and their fans. UTEP, UH, Rice, SMU, and TCU have more to gain if a TSU or UTSA join their conference or play OOC games against them in the future because they get more exposure in an area of the state that they can recruit better. Unfortunately, our location, which is a hotbed for recruiting anyway, already has exposure in the two conferences that we would love to be a member in--and SMU and TCU want nothing to do with us being in their conference.
The best hope for UNT, in my opinion, is for the larger public universities in the SBC and CUSA to create their own conference. Then, a conference of La Tech, Ark State, UH, ULL, UNT, UTEP, NMSU, USM, UAB, Troy, MTSU, and WKU would be a great combo of all of the SBC and CUSA. UNT would be a prominent player as the only Metroplex school in this scenario and we would upgrade our conference immediately. Sadly, though, if SMU is in CUSA, we won't be--its just that simple. And probably the same with TCU and the MWC, too.
-
Anyone who takes the job of coaching at North Texas has to understand the culture of "football is little more than a club sport" attitude that has exsisted for most of the history of our school.]
To ask anyone that is wanting to really win--not just get a bigger paycheck from their previous job (i.e, Parker, Simon, Dickey, and Dodge)--with a "club sport" view of football is damn near impossible. No major Division I-A coordinator would even look here because of the pay cut and a successful head coach from FCS would probably just politely decline and look somewhere else. When the job was open last time, I guess the two names that it came down to were Dodge ad Harbaugh. Harbaugh coached at the D-II level and that may be where we have to try and go (i.e., Don Carthel) to get someone who can relate to the atmosphere around here and how to improve it going forward.
-
To me, there is not one single game on the schedule that is a sure-win.
Not being pessimistic, not trying to kick the dog while its down, and not saying I know something you don't, but I haven't seen ANYTHING that would lead me to believe this year will be better.
The best you can argue is that everyone is better "with another year of experience," but, man, I must have been hearing that once every year i've been following the program. But what about our new QB? Defection, suspension, or graduation of your best receivers? Piecemeal offensive line? Paper-thin defensive line? Swiss-cheese secondary? Awful special teams? Questionable playcalling? Lack of halftime adjustments? No team leadership?
Do any of these sound like hallmarks of an improved team? I would say we would be worse, but I can't bring myself to call for an 0-fer season for my team. We might squeak one out, but, for the life of me, i can't tell you which one. We aren't arguing whether 6 or 7 wins counts for something, like we had the luxury of during our Sun Belt dominance. We're starting to question if you can salvage anything meaningful from three wins in two years.
I admire the guys who truly believe we have a shot at a 4+ win season. I hope with every fiber of my being that you are right. But an ill wind is blowing here, and, if I had to bet my own hard earned money, I'm not calling for more than a win or two in 09.
Completely agree. I see 1-2 wins in 2009--at the most. (WKU and an upset--maybe Army??) I think this will be the end of the road and we get to start all over again, which bums me out because I like TD and think he is a terrific family man. It just appears that TD and UNT are not a good fit together. All of which leads to this question: Knowing how stellar our leadership has been in hiring football coaches in the last 30 years, who on here thinks that we will get the next hire anywhere close to being right? We haven't gotten the right guy here since Corky Nelson in 1982--and we fired him in 1990 to bring in Dennis Parker/Matt Simon/Darrell Dickey/Todd Dodge over the last 17 years. And we wonder why we have no support--with these "terrific" hires, who would have ever guessed that we cared more for music than football?
Good things are happening for coaches getting passed over by UNT!!
-
Didn't the "real" Lonnie Finch transfer from O.U. several years ago?
No, but his brother, Reggie Finch, did. And he was a huge disappointment.
-
Huge
Can We???
Will We??
Senate To Hold Hearings On Bcs
in Mean Green Football
Posted
I think that what you would find, sadly, is that the big bowl games would fight to keep their tie-ins with the big BCS schools because of TV and media coverage. The reality is that most of the media really make the Boise State victory over OU out as a "miracle" and they always say the ratings are lower for those games vs. a big name bowl game (i.e., UT vs Ohio State). I don't personally know if the ratings are better or worse with a "Cinderella", but we are always told by the media elite that the population wants these big games between the name schools. I don't think the Orange Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl, etc..will ever give up having the big schools in their game. If legislation passed to correct this--ie force the smaller conferences to have access, I bet the bowl organizers would counter-sue in a heartbeat. And, to be honest, I can't blame them--the big schools have used their success to make new fans and alumni, increase interest, and drive the ratings game. Its probably the single biggest disappointment for UNT--if we had cared about athletics at all before the turn of the century, we could have easily been included in this mix. We literally have no one to blame but ourselves--and SMU, of course!!