GL2Greatness

your sources are a sports site no one has ever heard of and the Chickasaw news opinion piece I guess you could not find a supporting article from bleacher reports? again believe what you want to believe, but the fact that you referred to OU as a small market program says all that needs to be said even if OU did not bring the value to the PAC as you are saying the fact is that as of now the teams in the Big 12 with an old first tier deal and no third tier rights included are making about a million less per year currently than the teams in the PAC and that is including all their three tiers of rights and that is excluding that many PAC teams had to spend money out of their payouts to buy back third tier rights so they could sign the new deal the Big 12 teams excluding third tier deals and excluding money they are getting from MU and TAMU make 17 million per year with their first tier deal expiring in a couple of years the PAC teams make 18 million this year and their deal scales to 25 million by the end of the deal so if you include the 8 million that KU makes right now today for their third tier rights in with 17 million that means that KU right now today makes the same money that the PAC teams will be making in 12 years from now with UT they are making 17 million + 15 million (IMG gets 5 million of the 20) so UT is making 32 million right now today which is more than the PAC teams will make in 12 years KSU has a 3 million third tier deal so they are today making 2 million more than PAC teams are making.....again excluding payouts from MU and TAMU and excluding that many PAC teams had to buy back their third tier rights the Big 12 just signed a 9 million per team second tier deal with Fox and their first tier deal is only worth 6 million per team with ESPN and is over in 2015-16 and they have another deal with FSN for 1.95 million per team that ends this year......so they get 16.95 (17 million) and they have a deal coming up this year and a first tier deal in a couple of years which is long before 2022-2023 then the PAC deal is up and long before all but the BE deals are up with the BE deals mostly up this year and being negotiated so again even if the Big 12 gets the same money for their first tier deal in 2015 as they got for their second tier deal this year they will still be doing very well when you include third tier rights and no one thinks that the Big 12 first tier deal will be the same or less than their new second tier deal so the Big 12 teams will be well ahead of the PAC teams even when the PAC teams are topping out at 25 million per team in 2022-23 so while someone at the WTF times and the Chickasaw News might be math challenged like you, but fortunately for OU fans their AD and the UT AD are not mathematically challenged and they know how to value their media rights instead of giving that value away to many more begging bowls in a 16 team conference.....which helps explain why the current Big 12 had 4 of the top 10 most profitable athletics programs in the country and the ACC had none and the PAC had one in the top 19 also the Big 12 had 6 teams in the NCAAs this year while the PAC had one team so the Big 12 will be splitting that money by 10 teams (8 since TAMU and MU will not get theirs) while the PAC will be splitting theirs by 12 and if the 4 teams form the Big 12 had been added to the PAC this year then UT would have been the only additional NCAA big which would be two bids split by 16 the Big 12 usually puts more teams in bowl games as well and WVU and TCU are taking lesser TV payouts the first few years as well so again OU and UT know how to value a long term conference affiliation VS a short term gain of very very little real money....and that is again not even counting the money that UT and OU would have had to give up to go to the PAC because the Big 12 would not have folded the remaining teams would have reformed it and taken those distributions as well so UT and OU will do much better financially in the short term and especially in the long term as members of the Big 12 and all the "rumors" point to the fact that FSU and Clemson would do much better if they were lured to the Big 12 as well WFTnews and the Chickasaw BFEer aside

we are discussing entire conferences not the "top teams" of each conference so just go ahead and ignore where 5 out of 8 of the original Big 12 teams have been to a BCS game and 4 out of 8 have won at least one and that 7 out of 10 in the new big 12 have played in one and 6 have won at least one while in the ACC 6 out of 14 have played in one and 3 out of 14 have won one...and ignore that all the BCS games Miami played in were while they were in the Big East, but I am crediting those to the ACC also ignore where 8 teams in the original Big 12 have as many MNC appearances as 14 teams in the ACC and that is counting the 2 Miami BE appearances and a VT BE appearance and removing the NU Big 12 MNC appearance so over the entire history of the BCS it is clear that the Big 12 has performed much better as a conference top to bottom and even at the very top and the ACC with a very recent three tier TV deal and a conference championship getting less money than the Big 12 with an older first tier deal and no third tier deals included and no CCG again shows that the networks view the Big 12 as a stronger conference worth more on the market and the big 12 will still make more TV money even when the ACC adds two more schools and still not including any third tier deals and with no CCG so you and a few others may feel that way about the Big 12 VS the ACC, but the TV money and the BCS numbers fail to support that in any way shape or form

you must be brain dead...OU is a national power and has been for decades....I guess you consider Alabama a small market program as well as for the PAC it is the other way around....UT and OU did not feel like handing off their national value to 14 other teams that bring a whole lot less than they do in a 16 team conference why hand out money you bring to the table to 14 other mouths when you can only hand that out to 8 or 10 others in a 10 or 12 team conference.....the same lesson the top teams in the ACC are learning now which is why they are looking at the Big 12 for those that were apparently born after 1990 it was OU that sued the NCAA to get out of the NCAA controlling all the media for football because OU knew they were giving money away for their popularity nationally to teams that bring nothing to D1-A football also for those that are fans of a program that relies on conference distributions, conference TV money (even if small), and student fees for the vast majority of their athletics budget take a look at the 90+ million that OU athletics brings in every year and then look at their ticket sales, their student fees (if any), their conference TV money, and their conference distributions then you can scratch your head where the other 40 million for a "small market team with no national following" comes from and maybe when you wake up you will realize it is from people all across the country buying OU merchandise to wear because they like to support and be associated with a long term winner the lack of knowledge and reality sometimes showed on this forum is laughable and PS the metromess may be larger in population than the entire state of Oklahoma, but if you compare OU support, OU merchandise sales, and OU game attendance in the metromess to other schools in the metromess maybe you will again gain an understanding of what a national following means things like Craig Miller and corby supporting OU even though neither ever went to school there and both actually went to metromess schools

yea "classy" involves making up a stupid scenario that involves NCAA violations and then inserting the team that your fan base is obsessed with as the instigators while asserting your "class" to be above that

yea Oklahoma is a real "small market program" they have only played in the second most BCS games of any team and they are only the 8th most profitable team in college sports and have been to more MNCs than any other team in D1-A football http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/blog/_/name/assael_shaun/id/7889475/kansas-state-most-profitable-athletic-department-2010-11-file and all those "small market programs" have 4 of the top 10 most profitable programs in college sports while the ACC has 4 less than that which equals ZERO the last line in reply just sums up how little you actually know....you say it is about dollars which is correct, but you have no clue what makes those dollrs happen.......100% of a "small market" is better than .01% of a huge market that doesn't care or show up or pay for merchandies of the 8 teams still in the origonal Big 12 5 have played in a BCS game and 4 have won one add in TCU and WVU and that is 7 out of 10 that have played in a BCS game and 6 out of 10 have won one or more of the 14 current and future ACC teams 8 have played ina BCS game, but only three have won one so that is 60% of teams in a conference with a BCS win and 70% with BCS participation VS 21.4% that have won one and 57.1 that have played in one the current 8 members of the origonal Big 12 have been to 15 BCS games all the 14 teams in the ACC have been to 23 if you add TCU and WVU to the Big 12 totals (like counting 14 teams for the ACC) then the Big 12 is 20 appearences for 10 teams VS 23 for 14 teams the origonal 8 remaining Big 12 teams have been to 6 MNCs counting all 14 ACC teams it is 6 as well and both would be 2-4 and of the current ACC teams only FSU has been 3 times VS 4 for OU and 2 for Texas so based on the above the Big 12 current and future is still a much deeper and better overall football conference for the long haul and if FSU especially was to leave the Big 12 would be even better and Clemson would still bring 1 BCS appearence with them as well and take one from the ACC the ACC currently gets somewhere around 13 million per year and adding two schools might get them to 15 million and that is for all 3 tiers of tV rights the Big 12 is currently at 17 million for two tiers with their first tier deal set to expire in 2015-2016 and even if their first tier deal only is equal to their new second tier deal they would go up 3 million per team and their first tier deal will be way better than their second tier deal simply because that is how it works so FSU could pay off that 20 million in 5 years or less and that is without signing a third tier deal.....KU gets 8 million for theirs, KSU gets something like 3 million, Tech and OU are about to make deals and Florida gets 7.45 million per year for theirs so if FSU could even get KSU money for theirs they would pay off the move in two years or less if the BE breaks up what you will see happen is teams from the CUSA and probably a couple from the MWC and maybe a few scattered here and there will join to form up a new conference teams like Tulane, Rice, UTEP, and Tulsa are not going to pass on the chance to join back up with SMU and UH and other teams like Louisville and others that might be left out from a BE break up and stay in the CUSA which is looking more and more like the new move up league Tulane, LaTech, Louisville, Cincy, USF, UCF, Rice, Tulsa, UTEP, SMU, UH, Memphis, ECU, USM would be chomping at the bit to get back together/dump the baggage they have now and reform a new conference the question would be how spread out they would want it and what some teams in the MWC might want to do with the possibility some of the top MWC teams leaving the MWC and some of the mid level teams in the CUSA moving into their spots if the conference goes for a true east to west foot print the 14 teams above would be pretty compact, it coule easily break down with USF, UCF, ECU, USM, Louisville, Cincy, and Memphis and then Tulane, LaTech, Tulsa, Rice, UH, SMU, UTEP play the 6 teams in your own division, and 2 from the other for 8 in conference and 4 OOC with a championship, travel would nto be terrible especially interdivision and there are some similar matchups in academics and a nice mix of public and private and several states having more than one team and Texas having the max that works of 4 with the two major metros covered

http://www.ntdaily.com/?p=66281 a little blurb about your favorite secondary mascot!

1. yes, moving down to D1-AA would be a wise choice for a school like UTEP with their fan support and facilities 2. only UNT fans obsess with their lack of inclusion in the SWC I doubt UTEP fans have ever thought about it at and if they have it was 20 years ago 3. UTEP played in a conference with several former SWC teams so UTEP was well beyond "SWC teams" (as if they were ever obsessing over that) and they made the move to stay with those teams and join another (UH) TCU moved away from that on purpose and now SMU and UH are leaving UTEP with Rice as the Texas CUSA teams and UTEP is not going to get a Big 12 invite 4. at the time that the SWC existed only UTEP and UNT were not SWC schools in D1-A so UTEP would have only had an opportunity to move to a conference to play former SWC teams.....in pretty much ANY conference that had a D1-A Texas team other than the belt

so are you saying they are trying to get away from CUSA and UTSA even though their entire reason for leaving the WAC for the CUSA was to play Texas teams and they still have Rice in CUSA and UTSA would be a second team and UNT might be a third team?

UTEP had better years with Price in their last year in the WAC and first in CUSA CUSA has not helped them much and you never know who the MWC might add perhaps UTEP knows the MWC is looking at UTSA or TxState

hahahahahaha he makes 800K there with way better facilities and a way better conference not a chance he would leave there to come to unt

also neither school is close to being 5,000 less students than UNT University of North Texas 35,694 Texas State University-San Marcos 34,087 Texas Tech University 32,149 University of Houston 39,820 The University of Texas at Arlington 33,439 The University of Texas at El Paso 22,582 The University of Texas at Dallas 18,864 The University of Texas at San Antonio 30,968 those are the 2011 fall enrollment numbers so TxState is 1607 less and Tech is 3545 less and since tuition (mostly) and state funding is based on FTEs not total enrollment (15 hours for undergrads and 9 hours for grad students) these are the FTE totals for the 8 emerging research universities University of North Texas 27846.83 Texas State University-San Marcos 27497.06 Texas Tech University 28232.47 University of Houston 31902.5 The University of Texas at Arlington 22834.78 The University of Texas at El Paso 16374.28 The University of Texas at Dallas 14869.38 The University of Texas at San Antonio 24355.78 so TxState was only 349.77 FTEs behind UNT and Tech is actually 386.14 FTEs ahead of UNT much different than "5000"

not sure what numbers you were looking at, but "revenue" comes to a university in a number of ways many of which are not tuition University of North Texas $8,736 Texas State University-San Marcos $8,230 Texas Tech University $9,064 University of Houston $9,211 The University of Texas at Arlington $9,152 The University of Texas at El Paso $6,869 The University of Texas at Dallas $11,168 The University of Texas at San Antonio $8,790 this is the average tuition and fees for 2012 for the 8 emerging research universities so UNT is not much different than any but UTD and UTEP and is actually higher than TxState and only slightly lower than Texas Tech

perhaps it does not make a difference to move into "the belt" but if SMU or UH had a 100 million dollar endowment they would not be in the Big East and if TCU had a 100 million dollar endowment they would not be in the Big 12 Boise got into the BE for one reason only and that is because they win and the BE needs their points Endowment may not be the only factor of even one of the major factors, but it comes into consideration for sure as for your comments on Ivy League there is a reason none of them are ever ask to move up and that is because they won't move up because they all specifically decided to move down to remove the emphasis and spending on athletics over academics and also because they all like playing each other in the Ivy League and they don't need the exposure of D1-A athletics so bringing them up is just nonsense so you are saying they would be right below FIU and even with or maybe just ahead of FAU then right?

at state schools endowments can make a huge difference as stated with most Texas schools paying out 4.5 to 5% that is 5 million per year for every hundred million in endowment so UH with 550 million in endowment is paying out at least 24.75 million more than a school with zero endowment every year Tech with 475 is paying out at least 21 million that is a lot of money for financial aid, hiring top faculty, building research infrastructure, buying research equipment, recruiting graduate students and post docs, and paying higher faculty start up packages to help lure recognized faculty.....none of those things are covered under state formula funding in 09-10 state support for resident tuition for UNT was 34 million and change and non-resident tuition was 7 million and change state support was 109 million and change so an endowment in the 500 million dollar range paying out 24+ million a year would make a huge difference that is about 14%+ of a state support budget increase every year and probably a 5 to 7% overall budget increase

the endowment for Troy is 30 million and change http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2011_NCSE_Public_Tables_Endowment_Market_Values_Final_January_17_2012.pdf still small potatoes, but a great deal more than 400K and 166 million is really not a "good chunk of change" either endowments usually pay out between 4.5 to 5% so that would be paying out 8,300,000 per year endowments are often not restricted in use it just depends on the donor and endowments do matter in some cases because it is a source of funds that are often not restricted like state funding is and it is money that students can't point to and say "that is our tuition being spent" true some portions of endowments are restricted if the donor request it goes to a specific program, but after that donation it depends on how the compounded gain is handled as well if a million is given and the university has a policy of 5% payout then that would be 50K to some program, but if the university can grow that 1 million over a 5% rate of return for several years running than they hold the payout to 5% of a million for the specific program it was given for that would leave excess funds returned to the endowment that would generate future unrestricted returns 166 million is really pretty small overall, but when you are in the 500 million to 1B range and you have a great deal of flexibility in investments it can start to add up or if you are in the 500m to 1B range and most of it is unrestricted that leaves some money to spend on athletics if you need to make a one time investment in a facility or program

you can go on believing whatever you wish, but the reality is you will most likely end up sadly mistaken

well I know for a fact that the administration at UNT has a long history of making promises they never intend to keep to department chairmen for several departments several times...I know this because I heard it right from those department chairmen's mouths several times and I watched those individuals leave UNT because of that and go on to success at other places I know that in spite of the lack of contentment with RV from several members of this forum and with 100% of the other forum that RV still got a contract renewal just in the last few months I know for a fact that for the last decade and a half that UNT has had one of the smallest athletics budgets in D1-A combined with a serious title 9 issue when RV first came here along with a serious facilities issue I know for a fact that even today a very large portion of the athletics budget for UNT comes on the backs of students I know that it is well documented that few coaches have ever moved up and on from UNT in any sport I know it is well documented that the chancellor of the "system" likes to interfere in the running of the university and that he has performed extremely poorly in what was said to be his major qualification for the job when he was hired so all that for me based on personal experience and knowledge of UNT tells me that RVs job will be based on much more than just wins and losses on the field and that the administration of UNT will have no issue with pushing decisions on RV even against his wishes or recommendations and it also leads me to believe that RV has been hung out to dry several times by past administrations so he is unwilling to stick his neck out now the way he has in the past especially when there is little if any incentive for him to do so from an employment perspective or from a fan and outside financial support perspective

you seem to have little understanding of how it works for RV or what he can and can't do or what it is in it for him to do the things you wish he would do

1. disingenuous at best to compare a large donor to the president of the university that is the direct supervisor of the AD 2. it is not like there is a massive list of proven candidates just lined up to take positions at UNT that afford the AD the opportunity to show his boss that there are so many better selections 3. we know for a fact that Dr. B is not easily swayed when she takes a position on something because that same type of thing cost her the job as president....true her boss lee jackson is a do nothing idiot, but she would not flex to meet the demands of HER boss to the point that she lost her job what makes you think that she would so easily give in to a subordinate 4. we all know that BOR bobby stepped in to keep DD and while that looked good at first it ended badly in the end so there are two examples of RV having more than "outside interference" in two out of three major sports at UNT and the interference was from people that were in a position to remove RV from his position if he did not comply with their wishes....and one of them was set enough in their ways that is cost them their position I personally feel the whole "DD hated UNT" thing was a bit over blown, but it was going on at a critical time for UNT in terms of improving facilities, support, and conference affiliation and at the end of the day even though Todge sucked as a coach he was much more likable, he drew about the same fan numbers, and facilities were moved forward while he was at UNT and many on this forum still despise DD more than Todge simply for his attitude and the final outcome if RV had been able to run his athletics program the way he desired without the BOR interfering I don't think the final outcome would have been different on conference affiliation, but I think it may have been different on where the program is today VS where it could be

actually this is what it says “Effective June 1, all current and future employees within the UNT System, except faculty and individuals under contract, serve at-will,” Jackson wrote in the email. so it exempts faculty and it exempts others that are under individual contracts....you were not reading what it said correctly and usually faculty that are not tenured are under some type of contract and or tenure track agreement that spells out the time period they have to try and obtain tenure before their employment goes under review usually it is 3 to 4 years to gain tenure or to go for a tenure review and than subsequent to the results of that tenure review you are either tenured, you are given an extended period of time to undergo a second tenure review, or you are given a year or so to find a new job and wrap up your affairs at the current university....in some cases you might be retained and not given a second chance to go for tenure and then you would be given contracts usually 3 years in length or so subject to renewal

well you are missing out on the very large fact that UNT did not have the "at will" policy in place when she was fired.....and she was really not "fired" per say anyway she was made uncomfortable enough and compensated enough that she walked away so even with the former policy in place and before the "at will" policy was in place what you are concerned about already happened and it happened to the highest official of the university.....so really the policy that you favor was already a failure and really it is only an avenue for stupid lawsuits from lower level employees that will not be bought out to step away again if there is a budget cut there is no need for a huge drawn out "why you are being let go" pity party and if someone is let go because of some unjust factor there are plenty of rules, laws, government agencies, and shyster lawyers in place to handle their potential issue just like the fool professor with the big chief tablet legal filing at the south dallas flagship campus......and of course since her "case" was junk it was tossed....even before the "at will" policy was in place.....which shows again that even idiots with ZERO actual legal issues for their firing will get their day in court of they desire one so there is no need for a complex system of giving a big long explanation and justification to everyone that is let go for any reason there are plenty of state and federal laws dealing with employment there does not need to be special university specific policies in place to justify why someone is being let go hell UNT could not even fire a provost making well into the 6 figures for blatant plagiarizing so I don't think there is a rash of unjust firings going on around UNT that anyone needs to be protected from and if there are as shown by the big chief legal filing they will get their day in court even if they get tossed right back out for being wrong

why should a government job be a job for life if there is no need for your position or your position needs to be cut because of budget cuts then you should be let go....what more explanation does someone need just because they work for the government why should they not be subjected to being let go if there is not a need for them any longer and if they violated a rule of employment that would be explained to them when they are let go just like anywhere else and for those that know what was going on and that were able to read the available information we know why Dr. b was let go.....because she wanted to run the university as a president should and she did not want to let the idiot lee jackson run the university which is not the job of a chancellor in Texas she wanted to raise tuition and lee did not and when she took it to the BOR he got mad she wanted to stop the Denton campus from subsidizing the UCD and other dallas economic development projects and lee wanted to continue to use the Denton campus as a city of dallas economic development slush fund she wanted to be informed when things were being taken from the Denton campus and she wanted a say in that and the idiot lee wanted to move it all to dallas to benefit his friends and associates and she resented that and questioned it so lee the idiot fired her

should I also factor in that Chuck said in his report that the vast majority of the new student fee money would be eaten up be servicing the debt on the new stadium or should I pretend as though that money represents a huge new amount of money for UNT to make further improvements with? and should I factor in that those student fees only can legally cover half of the cost of the stadium which means the expense of the other half still needs to be accounted for....or should I pretend that half will get paid for out of thin air or that Apogee covered 100% of that?

just because someone discusses something using actual information and facts VS sunshine pumping and half truths and lies that does not mean they have some huge agenda it just means they live in a world of reality instead of a world of huge expectations followed by huge disappointment like in the thread about "tier 1" where I explained that numbers of donors does not count for anything....but I was immediately called out for that and challenged by the "big spendaz" of UNT.....even though I was correct and they were wrong.....why anyone would have an agenda to spread false information about how donations count is beyond me, but they seem to have it.....and when other universities gain NRUF funding before UNT they will be the first to wonder why http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/news/2012/02/08/how-much-does-your-university-spend-on.html the above is for the 2010-2011 athletics budget year....state fiscal budgets in Texas usually end at the end of August and the UNT athletics fee did not kick in until fall of 2011....the report above does not list a time period of actual months and since athletics seasons do not match up to semesters in exact dates or with fiscal years there is some ambiguity but here are the numbers from that report University of Nevada-Las Vegas Mountain West NV $56,027,699 $3,806,508 $6,745,418 $56,027,699 University of Central Florida Conference USA FL $37,821,564 $3,073,522 $12,706,791 $37,821,564 East Carolina University Conference USA NC $30,999,715 $2,150,891 $8,644,561 $32,558,927 University of Hawaii WAC HI $31,151,191 $2,032,468 $8,860,417 $31,607,695 Tulane University Conference USA LA $24,626,024 $2,012,935 $7,448,332 $30,200,024 Rice University Conference USA TX $29,750,082 $3,678,909 $12,261,854 $29,750,082 University of New Mexico Mountain West NM $29,261,501 $3,825,760 $6,679,522 $29,261,501 Fresno State WAC CA $26,966,469 $1,768,355 $7,040,523 $29,254,566 University of Wyoming Mountain West WY $27,800,440 $2,670,401 $5,770,034 $27,800,440 Colorado State University Mountain West CO $24,520,840 $2,342,597 $7,744,375 $26,757,801 University of Alabama at Birmingham Conference USA AL $25,076,684 $2,732,944 $6,625,462 $25,103,99 University of Texas at El Paso Conference USA TX $24,325,260 $3,600,201 $8,033,088 $24,359,091 Marshall University Conference USA WV $23,392,087 $2,483,894 $6,324,868 $24,690,027 University of North Texas Sun Belt TX $22,417,616 $1,863,022 $6,824,909 $22,417,616 University of Southern Mississippi Conference USA MS $20,440,121 $1,806,789 $6,404,547 $20,440,121 University of Nevada-Reno WAC NV $20,966,594 $1,889,776 $5,764,438 $20,966,594 the Neinas report list 4 million dollars as the amount that UNT will gain in additional monies from the student fee.....I personally believe much of that gain is listed in the budget above because the previous years athletics budget for UNT was 16.6 million http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/Neinas%20report.pdf I had the student fee adding 6 to 7 million dollars, but Chuck makes the big dollars for his reports and Chuck has the the full breakdown of who pays the fee and who does not and Chuck had the athletics and academic administration available to him to look over his numbers before the report was released to the public and Chuck says 4 million so if you add the full 4 million to the 22 million that would still put UNT below 11 other teams in a 17 team Alliance and if the 18th team has a budget below UNTs that would still not put UNT in the upper 50% of budgets even if you add my 7 million guestimate to the 22 million that would only just barely put UNT in the upper 50% of budgets and not near the top 25% and that is with all other teams staying stagnant which is unlikely and 7 million is a pretty high guestimate and I believe there is a portion of new student fee monies already in that 22.4 million so I don't think UNT will be in the upper 50% of athletics budgets in an 18 or even a 20 team alliance by even the most optimistic of projections I think they will be in the top of the lower 50% and more likely somewhere below that