GL2Greatness

keep telling yourself this and keep pretending it is realistic and you can keep being in the Sunbelt you really think the green tinted survey of a single individual about Tshirt observations and car window sticker counts has any meaning or relevance outside of gmg.com? the misperceptions, false characterizations, and just plain silly garbage tossed out on this fan forum by a large number of people about SMU in particular clearly does not sell to anyone outside of this message board it shows a clear lack of understand about SMU and the real world in general, but hey it seems to be working well for you so keep it up!

only baseball program in history to have helmet stickers

1. Academics 2. The facilities SMU had in place when they were invited to the CUSA were significantly better than what UNT had in place as was their administrations commitment to rebuilding their program 3. When the BE called the facilities SMU had in place had been established for a much longer period of time as was their commitment to building their program 4. UNT has played in 6 bowl games in their history winning one of them SMU has played in bowl games 3 out of the last 4 years winning two of them.....they have 100% more bowl wins in the last 4 years than UNT has in their entire history 5. SMU has played in a tougher conference for a much longer period of time 6. SMU beat a #20 TCU team in 2011 and that TCU team finished the season ranked #15/16 and was 11-2 overall according to this article UNT is 1-41 against ranked teams http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/09/alabama_football_notes_for_sat_9.html 7. SMU is 28-4-1 all time against UNT http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/opp-opp.pl?start=1900&end=2011&team1=Southern+Methodist&team2=North+Texas

false alarm

the newspaper of record for UNT has a story from a few days ago http://www.ntdaily.com/?p=62999

closet Texas Tech fan are you :ph34r:

it was someone talking about those teams going to the CUSA not the belt CUSA has better options....the belt not so much I never talked about size of media markets, but even if talking about them UTSA still drew twice as many fans in their first year of football VS UNT in their new stadium and size of a media market only matters if the people in that media market care about the product being offered UNT has only managed to draw under 19K fans in their best season several years ago and they only managed to draw under 19K in their first season in a new stadium only a few thousand more than TxState in their stadium while in D1-AA that does not even hold 19K until after the latest expansion and UNT is not in the CUSA as of now and this is one of the few articles that even mentions them for the CUSA

so by default UNT fans have to trash other schools with impunity, ignore the information that is readily available from multiple credible sources including the UNT website and the THECB and excuses about attendance are only allowed for UNT.....and if you do not like the truth then it is ban them pretty uninformed and clueless way to go through life and sounds like a good way to always be wondering why others are doing the things you wish to be doing.....or is that because of SMU.....even though the SMU holds us back is easily proven false as well and not even using wiki

1. here is the listing for endowments....TxState has had the higher endowment since 2008 http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2011_NCSE_Public_Tables_Endowment_Market_Values_Final_January_17_2012.pdf 372 Texas State University-San Marcos TX 119,711 94,709 26.4 390 University of North Texas TX 110,735 82,513 34.2 the US News does not use endowment specifically as one of their criteria and US News is just as bad of a source as wikipedia.....and I have not provided any wiki stats.....I have provided stats from recognized organizations that collect endowment data yearly from several hundred universities and I have provided stats from the THECB which audits all state universities and publishes those metrics......next time you should try and provide any proof of anything you are saying......because so far you have provided nothing and attempted to ignore the truth http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/09/12/methodology-undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights-2012 again endowment is not a listed criteria and you have provided no link to US News listing endowment information.....while I have provided a link to the NACUBO that conducts a yearly endowment study and has done so for about a decade or more 2. the % of students admitted means nothing.....it is a bogus statistic because it assumes the university has control of how many students apply and the qualifications of those students......who applies to a university and how qualified they are is out of the control of the university.....anyone can submit an application and any quantity of people can submit an application, but that factor is out of control of the university which means the number is irrelevant if one university has very high entrance requirements and they have 100 applicants and 100 of them are qualified they would have a 100% acceptance rate....while another university can have very low admissions standards and have 500 applicants and only 100 are qualified and they would have a 20% acceptance rate.......and the quality and quantity of those applicants are out of control of the university.......this always plays into the hands of private universities especially because those universities have individual applications and those universities have much more control of who they admit outside of their guaranteed admissions...so students will often apply hoping they will make alternate admissions......while state universities often have general state applications and have guaranteed admissions......just like it states on the UNT website below....GUARANTEED admissions...so students can use a single application and only apply to the schools they know they will be admitted to......which lowers the number of applicants VS privates that have much more flexibility in admissions and much more freedom to use financial aid as an incentive...so students will take a chance and hope to make alternate admissions or individual review and then look at any potential financial aid availability as well it is a useless metric....the metric that is meaningful is what standards a student has to meet for admissions and what metrics those that were admitted had upon admission.....not a % of admitted that relies on factors outside of the control of the university like total number of applicants some rankings use % admitted, but that is why those rankings are not respected....because those factors are meaningless and easy to manipulate as are many of the other factors they use since I am sure you will question that as well here is proof http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/03/rankings 3. the US News rankings and National VS regional categories are not based on a ranking....they are based solely on the number of PhDs graduated at a university and the US News uses the Carnegie Foundation Classifications to make those categories.....to be classified (the Carnegie Foundation does not rank universities they classify) a DRU or higher by the Carnegie Foundation a university needs to graduate more than 20 research based PhD students per year.....the US News bases national universities on being a DRU or higher and regional as classified outside of the DRU.....TxState will have graduated 20+ research based PhDs and will be a DRU or higher when the next Carnegie Classifications come out.....which means they will be a US News national university....and the Carnegie Foundation specifically states their classifications are not a basis of quality here is proof http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/resources/faqs.php Where are the Carnegie rankings? The Carnegie Foundation does not rank colleges and universities. Our classifications identify meaningful similarities and differences among institutions, but they do not imply quality differences. http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/09/05/methodology-best-colleges-ranking-category-definitions The Carnegie classification has been the basis of the Best Colleges sorting system since our first ranking was published in 1983, and before you say any comments about UNT graduating more research based PhDs.....remember that TxState only has 10 PhD programs VS 35 for UNT and TxState still does more total research and more restricted research than UNT does with restricted research being the first criteria needed for NRUF funding so with over a 3rd less Phd programs than UNT TxState still is a more productive overall research university and they are adding PhD programs while UNT is actually reducing PhD programs down from 50 in the past 4. http://www.unt.edu/admission/ notice where it says AUTOMATIC ADMISSIONS notice where it says applicants will BE GUARANTEED ADMISSIONS notice that website has the brand new tagline green light to greatness http://www.unt.edu/vwbk/admission.htm notice the dates on there.....admission for FALL 2012.....is MARCH FIRST 2012.....so that is this fall......with those GUARANTEED ADMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS I provided the proof......right from the UNT and TxState websites......those are the fall 2012 guaranteed admissions standards for automatic admission......again anyone can apply, but all that meet those requirements will be accepted.....that is not debatable.....there is no super top secret selectivity......there are only the metrics listed for each university that each student must achieve to be guaranteed admission and the required deadlines for submitting proof of meeting those metrics.....and the metrics I linked to are for the fall of 2012 you do not have proof because what you are saying is false....it is proven false right there on the UNT website where the deadline for early admission for fall of 2012 is less than a month away.....and the guaranteed admissions criteria are specifically listed....so again the proof of what I am saying is right there and the disproof of what you are saying is right there you can ignore that as you wish.....but you will be ignoring the truth 5. is this actually some type of argument...related to academics....the use of a hyphen in a name? really you think that has some meaning?...seems more like desperation on your part sort of like ignoring the stated admissions requirements above.....but hey if adding -San Marcos to a name makes you feel academically superior in spite of multiple listed statistics then I guess that is what you will have to clutch at because you have provided nothing of value or any proof so far...but that does not seem to stop you 6. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/article/Regents-toughen-UTSA-admissions-requirements-3206561.php there is proof that UTSA is raising their admissions 7. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2011/Attendance.pdf'>http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2011/Attendance.pdf TxState averaged 12,805 in 2010 playing in D1-AA UNT averaged 17,718 http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2011/Attendance.pdf'>http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2011/Attendance.pdf in 2011 UNT was 18,864 in their new 30K stadium TxState was 15,107 still in D1-AA in a stadium that holds 15,968 after the first round of renovations so if opening your new stadium and being 12K+ below available seating on attendance while having played in D1-A for the last 15 years makes you feel better then have at it and UTSA averaged 35K+ (in a stadium they DO NOT EVEN OWN!) as if that makes ant difference to anything.....in their first year ever of football.....so they would have had to turn away fans if they "owned" a stadium the size of the one at UNT......while UNT was 12K short of a sellout average and you bring up WINNING!...TxState was 6-6 last year in D1-AA.....UNT was 5-7 in D1-A they were 4-7 in 2010...how many years back do you need to go to claim their fans don't show up in 03 the best year for UNT in decades you averaged under 19K TxState averaged 10,500 that year...and they were 4-8 in D1-AA so it looks like TxState is growing their attendance while not doing much of significance and still not even fully in D1-A while UNT can claim about 18K when they win and about 18K when they open a new stadium TxState will be D1-A this year and have a 30k+ stadium that has just been remodeled for the second time in the last few years after coming off of a 6-6 season in D1-A while UNT will be in the second year in a new stadium after going 5-7 so 2012 will be a great year to compare....I would not be looking to UNT to be much over what they had this year and I would look for TxState to be well over what they had last year and UTSA was double both + some so again sounds like a lot of excuse making on your part....but hey we can see from the above that you like to ignore the reality of readily available information and ignore words like GUARANTEED ADMISSION and the like in favor of some super top secret and yet to be revealed stats that you have that shows how superior UNT is Vs TxState.....and we have not even discussed total research, restricted research, or 4,5 and 6 year graduation %....which TxState is higher in I am looking forward to your

you are already in the conference with the worst football programs in D1-A....and you are one of them and UTSA may have "no facilities" and in their first season....but they still averaged about 15K more fans for the entire year in a facility that is not theirs (as if that actually matters to anyone) than UNT has ever averaged in any year I look forward to the conclusion of next season when UTSA has averaged more fans for the year in a facility they do not own than UNT has and we can all hear more of the "give tickets away" and "their fans will go back to UT" and we can see more hand wringing over the better OOC schedule they are building and hear how all those schools are going to screw them on the home game in SA and leave them hanging point out that two programs are doing things early on in the process of starting a program or moving up to D1-A VS waiting 15 years to do them is only "trying to justify" their program if UNT pointing out all the things they waited for 15 years to do is UNT "justifying" their program to others as well and if things hold true to course TxState and UTSA will not need to come see UNT in 10 years they will have better opportunities to choose from for conference mates and on the field opponents because TxState and UTSA are doing things now not 10 or 15 years later

well so far in spite of starting off at a lower overall place they have managed not only to beat, but to soundly beat the attendance marks set by USF and you can continue to bring up giveaways all you wish, but that is just pretending that USF did not do the same and that other universities have not done the same...and it might not be "sustainable" but it sure beats the hell out of getting 15 or 17K and struggling to work your way up from there and for those that talk about TxState and UTSA "paying their dues like UNT did".....what exactly do you mean by that.....do you mean by waiting 15 years playing in a stadium with metal bleachers 500 yards from the field of play before making any kinds of improvements or building a new facility, waiting 15 years before getting students behind an increase in student fees, waiting 15 years to hire proven head coaches that have winning overall records in D1-A, and building fan support (especially outside of students and alumni) right from the start, getting the overall university and administration behind increasing the profile of athletics, and then getting into a D1-A conference even if it is one that might have issues and fall apart (shout out to the Big West) putting all of the above off for 15 years is not "paying your dues" it is sitting down at the table and expecting something to be handed to you instead of actually doing anything at all to earn it I don't think that you want TxState and UTSA to "pay their dues like UNT did" I think what you want is for them to make the same decade and a half of mistakes that UNT did so they can struggle for any recognition and fan support like UNT did and so far they are doing the exact opposite of that which I think is what so many on this forum have a concern about

does this apply to SMU as well or just UNT?.....even though SMU never objected to UNT in the SWC

here they are for 2011 from the THECB the TAMU Galveston number should be added in with TAMU since they are counted as the same university and considered TAMU Students Texas A&M University 49,861 Texas A&M University at Galveston 2,035 The University of Texas at Austin 51,112 University of Houston 39,820 University of North Texas 35,694 Texas State University-San Marcos 34,087 The University of Texas at Arlington 33,439 Texas Tech University 32,149 The University of Texas at San Antonio 30,968 The University of Texas at El Paso 22,582 The University of Texas at Dallas 18,864 and here is dorm space....so TxState is shedding the commuter school rep faster as well....with slightly fewer students and slightly more on campus housing edit to order the numbers

all the worse whan SMU blocking UNT from the SWC is in fact not true it is right here on page 94 of the Hayden Fry book http://books.google.com/books?id=bANS-aNcpn4C&lpg=PA228&ots=XUK0nY1BNZ&dq=Hayden%20Fry%3A%20A%20High%20Porch%20Picnic&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=north%20texas&f=false there was no objection by SMU or TCU to UNT joining the SWC.....not sure how much more clear it could be I can understand why people do not want more schools from Texas to compete with for recruits and attention, but complaining about SMU specifically when the fact is there is nothing to complain about just makes it laughable and further down it even states that Hayden Fry was appreciative that SMU was willing to play them several times while he was at UNT.....SMU and UNT have played 32 times since 1922 with SMU not having a program for two of those years so they have played every 2.7 (3) years......that is hardly avoiding someone that is not in the same conference and especially when one team was not even in D1-A for many of those years at least some forum members are honest about not wanting the competition even if they are dishonest about how other schools have treated UNT in the past and ignore the facts and the words of the coach and AD at the time when much of what they are angry towards SMU was going on...and they want to claim the right to look out for their own best interest while vilifying those that do the same.....even if the accusations they make about the situation are false

um... the endowment information was linked....TxState has had a larger endowment since 2008....they are 10% higher now at 110 million VS 100 million for UNT the admissions requirements for UNT are 950 SAT for 16-25% of HS class ranking.....they are 930 for TxState.....1050 for second quarter at UNT 1010 for TxState......they are both 1180 for 3rd quarter http://www.admissions.txstate.edu/future/freshman/getting-accepted.html http://www.unt.edu/vwbk/admission.htm those are hardly significant differences considering those are not extremely high scores and that puts UNT pretty much below UH and TxState right below UNT in the emerging research and public universities in Texas the name TxState is a great name and it was a wise decision to make the change and many UNT fans are upset they got the name when UNT had wanted the name and been denied in the past UTSA has a much lower admissions standard and they were near open enrollment until recently when the TAMU-K-SA campus opened and it became TAMU-SA and that will be the university to take students with lower admissions while UTSA will move towards higher selectivity and higher graduate enrollment and isn't it hard for a school that is 36K, with 5 million plus in the metro area, and 100K+ alumni in the area, a brand new stadium, and decades in D1-A to call out a school on attendance that is in a much smaller market, with lower enrollment, and fewer alumni nearby that is just moving up to D1-A for the first time...especially when the difference is only a couple of thousand and it is not trolling when factual information with verifiable sources is provided

It was Ralph the swimming pig http://boingboing.net/2008/10/16/home-of-ralph-the-sw.html and that was when the Springs were privately owned Ralph was sent into retirement when TxState bought the springs here is the presser for TxState becoming an emerging research university http://www.txstate.edu/news/news_releases/news_archive/2012/January-2012/EmergingResearch011212.html and UNT can report anything they wish for research, but it is the THECB that verifies that and then list it these are the state audited numbers for 2007-2011 Texas State University-San Marcos $10,319,657 $19,309,464 $24,494,208 $30,560,431 $33,486,998 University of North Texas $14,489,684 $16,798,880 $22,557,512 $24,715,921 $25,422,991 http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/Accountability2011/InteractiveGenerate.cfm here are the state audited numbers for restricted research which count towards NRUF funding http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gJ2Q-CXdV1UJ:www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/xls/1260.xls+UNT+total+research+expenditures+2011&cd=29&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us from 2011-2007 Texas State - San Marcos $19,078,112 $17,778,634 $13,336,491 $11,300,309 $8,137,690 University of North Texas $14,476,509 $13,293,480 $11,240,239 $9,378,481 $8,178,519 here is verification of the same from UNT http://research.unt.edu/sites/default/files/FY11_RR_Expenditures.pdf and for the growing engineering program helping there was a slight decrease from 2010-2011....opps College of Engineering $4,492,111 (2010) $3,517,985 (2011) and since 2008 TxState has had the larger endowment http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/NES2008PublicTable-AllInstitutionsByFY08MarketValue.pdf not exactly recent and admissions standards for UNT will not be going up this fall they are already listed and they are the same since 2004 http://www.unt.edu/vwbk/admission.htm Welcome, Class of 2016. the class of 2016 would be starting in....Fall of 2012 Fall 2012 March 1, 2012 Freshman Priority application deadline July 2, 2012 Transfer application deadline there is no mention of increased standards anywhere on the page that is welcoming the class of 2016 and giving Fall of 2012 admissions deadlines.....in the Dec 2011 BOR meeting they specifically declined to raise admissions and discussed hiring a firm (what UNT does best) to analyze the issue if anyone has a disagreement with the audited data from the THECB they should take it up with them because that is the data that is used by the state and every other university on the list has data and numbers that are right in line with what they have stated in any press release that is available online they also have it listed multiple places http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/Accountability2011/UNIV_Research.cfm?FICE=445566 choose the various universities in the drop down box TxState $ 11.653 $ 30.560 $ 33.487 187.4% $ 35.000 95.7% 2001 2010 2011 increase % from 2001 2015 CTG goal % completed towards CTG goal UNT $ 17.442 $ 24.716 $ 25.423 45.8% $ 30.330 83.8% so "UNT reports of" are not accurate......the THECB has what is accurate......and TxState does more total research and they do more restricted research which is what counts towards NRUF funding also TxState has a higher Closing The Gaps goal for 2015 by almost 5 million VS UNT and it is all in those links.....audited and verified.....from the THECB......and everyone matches up with their claims.....well all but one