GL2Greatness

I thought the most interesting and funny part was how many alumni do not even know there is a new stajium.......there were a ton of people saying things like "are they going to have this done before the season starts" or "I am sure whatever replaces this will jack up cost" or "why are they tearing down the stajium are they building a new one" or "why is it being demolished" there are dozens of people that have no clue there is even a new stajium or that Fouts is not still in use....THAT is a disconnect......from the universe no one is scared of the "sleeping giant" and even when north Texas was on their DD roll their big wins were over Baylor and SMU that were at the time two of the worst programs in the history if D1-A football and each was matched with a loss to similar all time horrible teams the next season

in 2012 UTSA was 4-4 against D1-A schools and 2-0 against D1-AA schools north Texas was 3-8 against D1-A schools and 1-0 against D1-AA schools so with 3 less opportunities UTSA had one more win against D1-A teams than north Texas did

#54 Blake Dunham Class: Junior Hometown: Argyle, TX High School: Argyle HS Height / Weight: 6-1 / 215 Position: DS

there are only so many sources of revenue for a university state: I&O Instruction and Operations....based on enrollment and types of programs offered and undergrad VS grad student enrollment and used to cover faculty and staff salaries and dedicated to only those legally allowed uses Formula Infrastructure...used to build and maintain classroom and lab space and other needed campus infrastructure and again based on enrollment and types of degrees offered and lab space and classroom space utilization.....so unless you can hold classes on labs in an indoor practice facility there will be no state funding involved in any indoor practice facitity tuition and fees: spent how ever the university wishes with some exceptions.....I do not believe it can be spent on dorms other services: parking intellectual property revenues from patents and inventions dorms....I believe dorm fees can only go towards the building and operations of dorms student union sales and profits athletics profits and ticket sales and merchandising sales and the like.....spend how you wish endowment proceeds and donations: unless the money placed in the endowment was ear marked for a specific program or use can be spent how the university wishes same thing with donations.....it goes to something specific or it can be used as wished by the university grants and contracts: there are no grants and contracts for indoor practice facilities and grants and contracts are very specific in their use so state money is out, endowment is extremely small and I would imagine most of it is for specific uses, other revenues from merchandising and IP and other things is very small, donations are small and grants and contracts are out that leaves tuition or some new source of donations as the way a practice facility will get built and north Texas as we all know north Texas is already nearing a critical point with their bonding capacity and bond rating and they are going to possibly surpass that critical point to build new dorms and even with dorm rates going up dramatically to help pay to build new dorms there is still a good chance that the north Texas bond rating will be lowered one notch from AA to AA- after the dorms are build and bonded and that means there is pretty much little else that will be getting built for Denton or the rest of the system without additional sources of revenue in the form of increased tuition and fees, state funding, donations or the like and since state monies were pretty much held steady this current session and tuition revenue bonds were voted down at the last minute that means for the next two years funding is going to remain about the same as the previous two years which means new buildings for classes and labs will be covered with existing revenue streams and no new revenues or bonding guarantees from the state and if system binds drop below AA- that removes them from the category that many institutional investors will consider investing in and that greatly increases borrowing cost and limits who will buy those bonds.....so with the system already looking at a possible downgrade to AA- because of building new dorms and another couple of planned projects and even with dorm rates (revenues) going up to cover the dorm portion of the bonds there is no more ability to take on revenue neutral and especially revenue negative projects without increasing tuition or running the risk of dropping below AA- which would be painful so either tuition goes up dramatically to provide new sources of revenue to cover campus construction and ease the burden on the systems bonding capacity or donations will need to go up dramatically specifically for athletics......and I doubt even if north Texas did have the bonding capacity for revenue neutral or negative projects that athletics has the revenues to cover athletics projects and I suppose one could try and call a baseball stadium or a covered practice facility some type of quasi-academic facility, but I would imagine the administration would get called out on that as an increase in athletics fees without following the printed laws about what is needed to increase athletics fees and it would become a major issue

it is really pretty simple if you look at the truth and the reality it comes down to money plain and simple....other programs have it and north Texas needs it......sure you can call football and mens and womens BB the :money sports" but more than likely at north Texas football is the only one that brings in more than it spends each year and there are really not money games in basketball or at least not for near the same amount of money it is a simple fact that the stajium cost a lot of money and half of it needs to be paid for, the sponsorship deal is nice, but part of it was in kind services to the university and the rest of it is back loaded and the truth of the matter is companies that sponsor stajiums do not exactly have a stellar record of completing those deals or even being in business when those deals end.....and that is just for the pros much less college.....so letting the 50/50 ratio of student to private funding slip here and there for a year or two with the idea that it will catch back up down the road and all even out is a very dangerous gamble and one the powers at be at north Texas are not going to take ticket sales are not huge and are not much above Fouts, the GMG club membership is growing, but slowly, suites are sold out which is nice, but club seats have availability and there are numerous training rooms, film rooms and on and on waiting for sponsorships so the money has to come in from somewhere and that is games with teams that pay money to show up for one game.....D1-AA teams are demanding more money and lower level D1-A teams are looking for more money and really the Idaho game was a bargain at $400,000 and RV managed to catch them at a time when they were more desperate than north Texas there are 11 other programs in Texas, 3 in the metromess, Jerry paying big money for games, The Cotton Bowl paying big money for games and Reliant and The Alamodome have paid big money for games and pro stajiums all over the country are now doing the same so teams have options and lost of them and when one program needs money (whether or not their fans want to believe that) they are going to have to do what it takes to get money and if a home game is a break even affair or if paying $400,000 or so for a D1-AA team or a team that does not bring much excitement is a break even affair or even a slight money loser well that will either need to be made up or it will just not be played in favor of spending travel cost and collecting a check

the new president is not going to give a damn about athletics at least for the first 18 months or so there are plenty of academic messes to clean up and the new president is going to be a system "yes man" just like all the recent hires for the Denton campus and for the rest of the system components and if they dare buck the system and lee the idiot they will be sent packing just like Dr B. was more than likely they will be someone with mid-level admin experience at a less than top reputation system or from a university with little overall research focus......they are not going to come in and focus on athletics they are going to come in and have athletics on the back burner and the current program will continue as it is......plus there is little they could do to change things anyway with current budget constraints um UTSA won more D1-A games last year than north Texas did....UTSA won 4 D1-A games including a win over a common opponent USA and a win over Texas State that throttled UH that throttled north Texas and UTSA also had wins over better D1-AA teams than north Texas (see you later McNeese State VS TSU) and the only 4 losses UTSA had last year were to three teams that played in bowl games (Rice, SJSU, and Utah State) and La Tech that was bowl eligible and the three bowl teams won their bowls as well so if UTSA is as close to anything Texas Southern in D1-A football than north Texas must be as close to anything worse than Texas southern in D1-AA north Texas has already clearly fallen behind Texas State in recruiting and is there or getting there with UTSA in 2013 Texas State was Rivals #81 and north Texas was #117.....spin it any way you wish, but #81 is much better than #117 period and the difference is significant in 2012 Texas State was #91 and north Texas was #99 so for two years in a row Texas state has been ahead in recruiting and Texas state is improving in those two years while north Texas is falling back from 2012 to 2013 currently for 2014 Texas state is #98 while north Texas is #109 Scout in 2012 had Texas state at #120 and north Texas at #110 and UTSA at #124 in 2013 it was UTSA #100 Texas State #104 and north Texas #124 for 2014 it is currently UTSA #104 and Texas State and north Texas unranked so no need to be concerned about the possibility of those two out recruiting north Texas because of this season being poor they are pretty much already doing that or getting very close to doing that also just a quick factoid from another thread.....the heart of Alamo Heights is 4 miles from the heart of downtown San Antonio and Alamo Heights is well inside loop 410 so Alamo Heights is far from being a suburban location and in fact if one looks at the map of San Antonio they would see Alamo Heights is pretty much the heart of central San Antonio proper......how can you comment on a place when you do not even know where it is located?

how is SMU avoiding north Texas when SMU announced they were going to the Big East December 7, 2011 http://www.smumustangs.com/genrel/120711aaa.html and north Texas was not added to CUSA until May 4, 2012 http://www.conferenceusa.com/genrel/050412aab.html that is basically 5 months apart with SMU moving first and there was no guarantee that north Texas was a lock for CUSA because the CUSA was looking at a number of teams as well as the merger with the MWC that might have meant that CUSA/MWC would add no one or maybe only one or two teams SMU moved because the BE was a better choice and staying with UH was an option they liked and even after the BE was starting to have issues teams were leaving the CUSA left and right....and some of them probably to get away from north Texas and the move ups, but SMU was long gone by then....and even now USM and others would be gone in a heart beat if the AAC called it is amazing the number of threads unrelated to SMU the inferior to SMU complex shows up in.....and why would a team that has won more bowl games in the last 4 years than north Texas has in the history of ever really concern themselves with north Texas every time they make a move.....and if they really wanted to avoid north Texas they would not have scheduled north Texas for so many upcoming games

anecdotal evidence from friends of friends and mystery students and the like is always fun, but then one needs to go past that and look at the reality of what has meaning it is interesting that for all the stories of how easy some schools are or the fact that they have students failing left and right and staying in programs.....at the end of the day it seems odd that those particular schools still remain highly ranked in various rankings as a university overall and even more so in multiple rankings for business programs.....and their students seem to have little difficulty finding employment and their alumni seem to give back to the university at a much higher % than some of the other "low cost" (cheap) options......and giving back to a university certainly implies both the means to give back (which comes from gainful employment) and it also implies that former students see their time at that university as very meaningful in their success in business and life.....and after all at a very "expensive" private university if one was to leave there and feel as though they did not get their moneys worth or that they could have achieved the same success at a less expensive university (cheap) what purpose would it serve for that person to shrug off those feelings and GIVE yet more money to that university....wouldn't they feel inclined to think to themselves they had wasted enough money and time at that university and there was going to be no additional money given for something that does not deliver as advertised so again while anecdotal stories are always mildly amusing the reality of rankings from numerous sources, rates of employment, and rates of alumni giving for some universities that already cost much more money as a student VS some lower cost (cheap) options really calls into question the validity of those anecdotal stories and to their overall relevance to the university as a whole or to the specific programs discussed and as for accounting and CPAs in general there are other measures that can show how well a university prepares their graduates for their chosen profession things like the % of students that pass various professional certifications needed to actual practice in that profession here are some recent metrics that deal with that for accounting specifically from 2004-2102 (8 years aggregated) https://www.tscpa.org/eweb/pdf/TodaysCPA/2013/WhereTexasCPAsFromJanFeb2013.pdf and while the statistical and mathematically challenged and logic impaired members of the forum (that includes you untflyer) will immediately champion the fact that north Texas is in the top 10 for total sections passed.....they will ignore the fact (and accuse some of using statistics in a biased fashion) that north Texas is not in the top 10 for passage rate and in fact north Texas is below the average passage rate of 49.2 with a passage rate of 46.7 while TCU is #3 in passage rate at 61.4 which is well above the average and below only UT Austin (one of if not the top accounting program in the USA) and Texas A&M which is also highly respected and for some (those that are mentioned as challenged/impaired above) I suppose the goal is to just produce a whole hell of a lot of students and then have a large % of them fail to pass the exams needed to practice in that profession, but for others the goal is to have a very high % of the total number of students produced (even if lower in numbers overall) pass those needed exams.....because really the goal is to produce students that can go out into the field of study and pass certifications as an individual and then be gainfully employed in that field of study and advance their career.....not to produce students that struggle to pass those certification exams, but revel in the fact that their friends told them some anecdotes and that some others they were in class may have passed those exams while they did not here is the final paragraph from the first page to help clarify the feelings of the author of the article Large schools with higher enrollments are expected to produce more successful candidates; therefore, the pass rates should also be considered. The pass rate is calculated by comparing the number of sections passed to the number of sections tested. Schools whose graduates passed fewer than 85 sections (10 per year) over this eight-and-a-half year period were eliminated from this analysis because the small numbers could produce an unreliable result. The top 10 schools by pass rate are listed in Exhibit 2 so again.....schools with larger overall enrollments are expected to have a higher total number of sections passed than some schools with lower enrollments, but that needs to be weighted against the total number of students taking those exams and the total number of exams attempted and here is another comment at the start of age 2 from the author It is not surprising that the flagship schools of the two largest state university systems and three prestigious private schools have the best pass rates. However, the number of successful candidates they produce, along with their pass rates, is quite striking in comparison to the other schools in the state. so it seems at least from the point of view of these authors writing for a professional publication that TCU and SMU and Baylor are doing very in preparing students to enter the profession of accounting and to become a CPA all anecdotal evidence aside....and with some amount of great statistical bias that I am sure untflyer and others will be along shortly to point out and clarify this comment is really not persuasive at all to your claim of being even an equal university much less a better university you are stating that students from TCU and SMU are at north Texas for a masters orientation (implying they have been accepted) and it is because those universities can't afford "actual graduate programs" SMU is 12,000 students with 7,000 undergrads and 5,000 graduate students or 41.667% graduate students......while TCU is 9,725 total and 8,465 undergrad and 1,269 graduate for a 13% graduate enrollment north Texas is 35,778 with 28,991 undergrads and 6,867 graduate students for a 19.19% graduate enrollment which is well below SMU and only slightly above TCU Rice University ( a place I don't think anyone with a modicum of intelligence would question has a high graduate reputation) is 3,708 undergrads and 2.374 graduates....so well under the total graduate enrollment of north Texas and even then you readily admit that TCU and SMU students are admitted to the masters programs at north Texas (19.19% of overall enrollment).......while SMU and TCU have higher or very similar graduate enrollment % of overall enrollment......which means that north Texas is accepting the students that CAN'T get into the graduate programs at TCU or SMU......so they come take a place in the small overall % of total graduate students at north Texas.......which means they they were more qualified than many others.....coming out of TCU and SMU and coming into north Texas as graduate students a smaller school with a higher or very similar graduate enrollment has the same % of available graduate positions available to their undergrads as does a larger overall university with a very low % of overall graduate student enrollment.....so in the case of SMU their undergrads have more % opportunity to get into grad school at SMU than an undergrad from north Texas would at north Texas and in the case of TCU they have only a slightly lower % chance of getting into grad school (based on available graduate positions relative to undergrad enrollment) as an undergrad than an undergrad from north Texas wishing to do undergrad work at north Texas....and then there are all those SMU and TCU undergrads bumping them out as well and as to the math challenged part.....perhaps they know full well how to do math and they understand that with a much more competitive financial aid package aided by the much higher endowments and much higher % of yearly alumni giving at TCU and SMU they can still attend those schools at a similar or even lower overall cost out of their own pockets and because of the quality of education they obtain at TCU or SMU even if they are not able to get into the graduate programs at those schools they will still be able to get a spot at the DFW fall back north Texas......not everyone pays full rate at the vast majority of private universities in the USA

this thread and many others like it represents why north Texas has such a difficult time ever "turning the corner" or hitting that "strategic moment" when it all "happens" and why so often so many north Texas fans are left so disappointed and let down because there is a belief that other teams have not taken a long term outlook on their program or they have not taken a long hard look at the options available to them and they have instead just make a hastily planned and poorly thought out jump based on some hoped for short term gain of some type and that is also combined with the idea that other programs just had some single moment where it "happened" and that single moment will "happen" for north Texas or that other programs make a move they feel will benefit them and then sit back on their ass and say "we have arrived" and that is that lets put it on cruise control all of which is the thinking mainly of GMG types and NOT the thinking of the fans of most other programs or administrations (even if that is or is not the thinking of the north Texas administration) over and over......we are out of the Big West here it comes!!!! new stadium look out the giant is awake!!!! finally a coach with D1-A experience here come the wins and recruits!!!! student fee passed it is on now!!! we won a bowl game against Cincy look out rankings services we are back!!!! we beat Baylor.....finally respect in Texas!!!!! we beat SMU......finally respect in the metromess!!!!! on and on and on ever looking for the point when it "happens" and ever talking down those that make move after move after move and pretending that they are getting lucky or that if north Texas had just done that (north Texas didn't) the results would have been exponentially bigger VS those that actually did it and the results they got from doing that....ever more excuses when single events don't pan out into WE ARE BACK!!!!.....ever more threads trying to console each other that some other team has finally made the single move that is going to cause their program to fall apart completely and they might even drop down to D1-AA (like north Texas did) or perhaps that will be so unpalatable for them they will just drop football entirely...even though those programs have a bigger budget, get conference invites that north Texas dreams of getting and those programs have had much more recent success than north Texas......this is finally the wrong move....DOOOOMMMM!!!!!!.....DONE FOR!!!!!...IT'S OVER MAN!!!!!....again completely ignoring the fact that those programs have been making move after move after move and investing, trying things, raising their budget, actually having some slight success on the field, recruiting better and at least having various options available to them before they become the default "we just have to take them I guess" decision after all the others have been picked over UH, Baylor, SMU, TCU, UTSA, Texas State and on and on are not just sitting back waiting for that single turning point or telling themselves they have finally made the move that signifies they have "arrived" or that it is just a given that success is now eminent and even if/when some of them have success they keep right on investing just like the programs they hope to keep up with and compete with year in and year out and their fans don't just accept that any one single move means that the heavy lifting and hard work is done they take it that now means the lifting only gets heavier and the work only gets harder because those you are hoping to go against are working that much harder and have that much more resources to work with.....while north Texas fans just toss out wild expectations and talk about "we are back!" and tell each other to keep an eye out for everyone else they are about to pass by broken down on the side of the road and looking to give up entirely once the sleeping giant is awake.......while those programs just keep on making moves, investing, working harder and trying to keep building for the future while the sleeping giant stays in a coma there is never going to be a strategic moment barring someone doing a TBone like $250 million dollar dump on north Texas athletics and even then one can look at places that have had that dump and see that the hard work continues, success is not guaranteed, and long term plans still need to be worked to keep moving up and on instead of telling everyone that will listen that now it is all here look out sleeping giant is awake

either side of your "point" does not bode well for north Texas.....if they did in fact change the offense to suit a player that has never stepped onto the field in a college game or played in 2 years that is a pretty stupid coaching move.....and it is all the more stupid in light of the fact that the player is now injured and listed as third string and if they did change the offense to suit that player and that player is still listed as third string (injured or not) VS second string what does it say about the abilities of a player that perhaps had the offense changed to more suit their style.....yet they are still listed as the third stringer...again not an overwhelming vote of confidence and if he was not starting or listed as first string because of an injury in most every program out there that would mean a listing as second string not third string unless north Texas does something different than most programs unless north Texas has the dumbest head coach and OC out there the reason they changed to offense was not to suit a player that has not played in two years it was to better suit what the OC is comfortable calling and working with because again if it was for a specific player so far that switch is looking very stupid right about now because that player is hurt and riding the pine 3rd string also the specific comment I was responding to was saying dumb down and change the offense even more.....the offense that has already been changed for whatever reason (I believe it was changed to suit the OC not a single player and changing to suit the OC makes sense to suit a single player not so much) ....the offense that should already favor the guy that is right now injured and 3rd string....so again in the context of the post I was responding to dumbing down or changing the offense even more would be even more stupid because the offense already should favor the guy that is currently injured and 3rd string.....but he is injured and 3rd string right now so changing it further would just be a give up for this year and another wait until next year situation because if the guy that is injured and 3rd string is everything that some on this forum think he is then he should be able to run the offense as it is now once healthy and if not dumbing it down and hoping that in another year he can pick up more of it is just laughable why do you assume that bb is worthy of being handed the starting position over others when he could not even beat out a 6'-1" 186# guy that was said to have a dead arm out of high school when competing for a starting job at the Scottsdale Community College Fighting Artichokes.....bb was there for their entire fall workouts and for their final scrimmage game and it was the first time in over a year that bb actually stepped up to compete for a position and he did not win that position he lost that competition to a guy that is 6'-1" 186# and was said to have a dead arm out of high school and had few if any D1-A offers and is now at CU of the PAC 12 competing for a starting position...the Fighting Artichokes of Scottsdale Community College was the place that bb hand picked with the wisdom of ages on his side and the place he felt he would have the greatest chance to get to start and play and that had the offense that best suited all his imaginary feats of strength and instead of winning the starting job he lost it to a 6'-1" 18# pound guy that was said to have a dead arm and instead of staying the rest of the season to compete for that position "something came up" and he transferred before the first game was even played and he has been at north Texas now for about 10 months and he is listed as 3rd string.....has he been injured this entire 10 months.....has he not been practicing at all this entire time.....do the coaches see him as a potential starter or a strong competitor to start, but because of an injury they have him at 3rd string even though most places would not put a starter listed as thirds string because of an injury they would put them as second string as worst again why the assumption that 3 D1-A head coaches and OCs (at least one with significant NFL experience as well) and a community college head coach and OC are all wrong when they do not just hand the position to bb and even a 4th D1-A head coach and OC are supporting to a degree the decision to not start bb at the Fighting Artichokes because the guy that did get the start they offered a scholarship to and are now giving a chance to earn a starting spot and or playing time...so when bb did compete against a dead armed 186# 6'-1" QB with few if any D1-A offers out of high school for a starting position at his hand picked community college that matched all his feats of strength and mad skillz bb did not win the position and the guy that did win the position now has a PAC 12 D1-A full ride and te chance to compete for a starting position.....so it is hard to say that CC head coach and CC OC made the wrong decision because after winning the starting position at the CC the 6'-1" dead armed guy now has a D1-A PAC 12 full ride and a chance to compete to start if you want to say DT is a terrible QB just say it and if you want to say that Turner Gill, his OC, fat Charlie and his OC, the Scottsdale HC and OC and DMac and Chico are all clueless and stupid for not handing the ball to bb and that you know better than all those that have actually watched him practice the few times he has bothered to practice and those that watched him compete in a scrimmage the one time he bothered to do that then just say it, but stop pretending that it is because bb has show anything at all what so ever that proves he has what it takes and just say you think you know better than all of those that get paid and have their jobs on the line that have not seen what you claim to have seen (which what you have seen is high school press clippings while they have actually seen him practice and work out and play.....sometimes when he feels like it)

what kind of an idiot coach changes a system to suit a player that has proven nothing to anyone since high school here is why bb is not on the field http://www.denverpost.com/cu/ci_23285021/cu-buffs-signing-jordan-gehrke-adds-drama-qb Go ahead and scoff at Scottsdale's nickname, but don't scoff at the Artichokes' level of play. In earning the starting job last season, Gehrke not only beat out Hawaii transfer Kevin Spain but also Brock Berglund, Valor Christian High's ballyhooed QB who transferred in from Kansas. so after an exhaustive global intergalactic search for the ultimate fit for brock that was a pure business decision he wound up at SCC and then when he could not beat out a kid that was listed at SCC as 6'-1" and 186 and went 22TDs VS 14 ints suddenly "something came up" and he packed up his press clippings and left and the article says he was 6'-0" 165# with a dead arm coming out of high school....so when a guy that is 6'-4" 215 and that works out with guys that work with the pros when the pros are on strike and that compares himself to Vick, Tebow, and Manning can't compete with that "something comes up" and he transfers yet again away from the community college that he hand picked from MILLIONS of offers as his best fit and based on his wisdom of ages learned from past mistakes going to KU ect. and now the guy that was 6'-0" and 165# out of high school with little or no major offers is at Colorado competing for a starting job.....the school that bb decided against and picked KU over instead and now bb is in Denton his 3rd stop in less than 3 years with a hurting hammy and competing for 3rd string at some point you have to ask when do the high school press clippings stop having meaning and when does the guy with all the hype actually step up and EARN playing time.....unless you are the type that thinks you need to change an offense and hand the starting position to a guy that has shown nothing but a propensity to walk away when the time comes to step up and actually prove something on the field or even in practice at what point do you have to face the reality that 3 D1-A head coaches and 3 D1-A OCs have had a chance to "see bb in action".....ok well a very limited chance because when it came time to actually step up and practice bb was nowhere to be found and then a community college head coach and OC had a chance to actually see bb in action and they went with the 6'-1" 186# guy that was said to have a dead arm out of high school and now that guy is playing for a team in the PAC 12 (even if it is a crappy one and the team that bb had committed to early on) and he is going to try and compete to earn a starting position or playing time is it really that hard to grasp that multiple people with experience in the college and even pro ranks are looking at bb and telling him that he actually has to do something to EARN playing time besides show them his high school press clippings and that after they tell that to bb he disappears and reappears somewhere else because "something came up" but yea lets not only toss him the ball and make him a starter lets go ahead and change the offense to suit him as well .....that would really be great for team moral and work ethics bb could be the greatest QB on the face of the earth, but no coach in their right mind is going to hand him a position or change an offense to suit him until he can PROVE that to them and high school press clippings and the inability to actually show up for practices at all or at full strength is not proving anything to anyone.....but it is getting a lot of others that do just that playing time, offers, spots to transfer to and play, and playing time when the starter falters and at many of the places that bb walked away from of course it sounds like that to you....you are incapable of hearing what you don't want to hear no matter the truth of what you are being told

how about dealing in reality....the reality that at this point 3 D1-A head coaches (Turner Gill, Fat Charlie, and DMac) have seen bb in practice and seen that he is not going to get the start until he does more to prove he is worthy of that.......3 D1-A offensive coordinators have seen the same....and one community college head coach and one community college OC have seen the same even after bb played in the spring game everyone here is basing the imaginary talent of bb on high school press clippings and on recruiting hype and the reality is the reason there is little else to go on falls squarely on the shoulders of bb because when he was ask to step up or was given the opportunity to step up and prove he belonged on the field of play he packed his bags and ran off to some place else to start over again here is a clear timeline of his time at KU http://www2.kusports.com/brockberglund/timeline/ he arrives on campus in time for spring drills, suddenly on March 3rd he has to run back home to mommie......he says he will be back at the end of April or first of June.....then he is suddenly back on April 5th and he has graciously volunteered to hold the clip board on the sidelines instead of actually working and practicing on April 9th he is back in CO and gets in the fight......in the mile high sports "exclusive with bb" he says he is back home to visit friends and family and there is no mention of the fact that he had already left the team in March for "personal reasons" and yet he is back a bit later to hold the clip board in spring drills and then he is back in CO right in the middle of when he said he was back in Kansas to "observe" he shows back up June 4th......he is there for photo day June 15th...then suddenly to his surprise according to the bb exclusive story in mile high sports he is charged in June 24th again this article says the same thing I have been saying http://www2.kusports.com/news/2011/jul/22/qb-brock-berglund-coach-turner-gill-both-pickle/ bb did not commit the assault until April 9th which was nearly 2 weeks after KU spring practice had started and bb had walked away from the team weeks before that and then still came back April 5th to watch practice and hold the clip board and then 4 days later went home and got in a fight.....and he was still not charged from that until June 24th and he showed back up in June for team photos and for the start of summer voluntary drills, but went back home again......and it was not until Turner Gill told him that he was not going to be a starter in August that he decided it would be "best to red shirt and concentrate on legal issues" so again bb had the opportunity to participate in spring drills, no matter what his story was for going home in the first of March he still was able to come back and hold the clip board on April 5th and then had time to fly back home for a "visit for friends and family" in the middle of his clip board holding duties and before he had said he would be able to return to the team at the end of April when he first left the team in March and in the "exclusive" bb story in mile high sports he completely ignores the fact that he left the team in early March and says that he was back home April 9th for a visit to friends and family......right in the middle of KU spring practice where he was the #1 clip board holder then bb states that Fat Charlie told him he would not start at all......but according to 5-10/6' Michael Cummings from Killeen, Texas Fat Charlie told him that he would get every opportunity to earn playing time before he was ask to possibly switch positions to receiver....and we know now that Fat Charlie was indeed a man of his word because Michael Cummings did in fact end up starting several games in 2012 for KU when Dane Crist faltered but of course bb was not there to COMPETE for that playing time because he was busy sitting out the season at north Texas because he had transferred instead of actually trying to compete for playing time at KU.......and he had also FAILED to actually win playing time at the community college in Arizona because a transfer QB from Hawaii beat him out and then "something came up" and he left community college so while all the message board coaches are still listening to the press clippings for bb from high school and his recruiting stats and his personal comparison to Payton Manning, Michael Vick and Tim Tebow and ignoring the fact that 3 D1-A head coaches, 3 D1-A offensive coordinators and a CC head coach ad a CC OC have failed to see the bb hype or to buy into it....and the reason they have failed to see that hype or buy into it is because every time bb is ask to even get on the PRACTICE field or to get into a spring game to prove the hype in practice or in a spring game "something comes up" and bb cuts and runs he cut and ran from KU in early March, he was only willing to be the #1 clip board holder for KU all spring, he acted stupid and got in a fight in the middle of being the #1 clip board holder.....even though he had still not been charged yet he refused to show up for voluntary summer workouts and he was only able to show up for team photo day......he refused to be around the team for the 2011 season so he could drag out his legal stupidity and then in the spring of 2012 he refused yet again to compete for playing time at KU and instead left the team and spent the spring doing his global intergalactic search for just the right fit for brock and that was at a community college in AZ......where he dd not win the starting job after the spring game and then "something came up" and he was gone from there so he did not get to see the field of play for yet a second season in a row.......and now at north Texas he has not shown enough to DMac or to Chico to win the starting job because he is not picking up the play book and because he has "an injury" to his hammy so again perhaps many members of the GMG community are impressed with two year old high school press clippings and the ability of bb to hold the clip board when he bothers to show up to practice, but 4 head coaches and 4 OCs are not that impressed with those "skills" and I am sure they are even less than impressed with his ability to cut and run when even remotely challenged to step up and win some playing time because that is all he has ever really show great skill at doing because he does not even bother to show up to most practices and when he does show up it is to hold the clip board or he is injured or there is some other reason he can't go full strength.....and even the single time he did go full strength at community college he did not win the starting job even after the spring game and he cut and ran from there no D1-A coach or OC is going to just hand someone like that a starting job.....the players at KU saw him as a cancer, the coach at the CC in Arizona did not seem particularly concerned that he was leaving and DMac and Chico have not exactly been singing his praises......which is why he is not even #2 he is #3 and did next to nothing in the spring game for north Texas

since I was accused of "bias" in the other thread and could not respond before it was closed I will respond here It is laughable that you would consider it "bias" that I only compared Rivals rankings when during that comparison I gave north Texas credit for two players that were not shown to have any other offers by Rivals (giving north Texas 8 instead of 6 players) while I gave UTSA and Texas State no credit for any players that did not have other offers actually listed by Rivals and I also gave north Texas credit for three phantom offers as well to make it 15 offers instead of 12 total offers from other teams for those (six) eight players that I counted as having Rivals offers even though two of them did not have Rivals offers listed It is hard to imagine that anyone that is not logically challenged or intellectually bankrupt would see that as "biased" against north Texas, but alas you are just such a person so you did see that as "bias" or that comparing Rivals players and offers to Rivals players and offers is somehow "bias" when of course north Texas was given two players and three additional offers while UTSA and Texas State were not given anything....I mean really it was a comparison using the same source, Rivals, with north Texas given extra offers and players that UTSA and Texas state were not.....and since Rivals was the source that had 6 players with offers and you listed 8 and counted 2 that actually had no offers listed on Rivals and based that on the fact they had offers listed on Scout while you only listed 6 players for Scout I was using the comparison between a single source, Rivals, that north Texas had the larger number of players counted.....using your method of giving two players credit for offers on Rivals even though they were not listed as having other offers on Rivals, but instead on Scout.....I suppose I could have been "less biased" if I had counted the 9th player that was listed by you from Scout as having an offer as well even though I had already used two players in the "Rivals" list that did not have offers listed by Rivals, but instead by Scout Also I had left off a couple of players for Texas State that Rivals had with D1-A offers from teams besides Texas State because they were offers from teams that were not quite as "legit" as UTEP or Memphis which is some of the teams you counted as "big time" offers.....so again in the case of Texas State they were under counted on Rivals players as well but just to make sure there is no "bias" here lets do it over again with Scout and Rivals Rivals north Texas #117 no 3* prospects Texas State #81 Eight 3* prospects Lucas Askew Memphis Rice SMU Tulsa Wyoming Jeff Banks Nevada Donta Clanton Arkansas St. Kentucky UTSA Marcus Dallas Jr Illinois Nevada Trey Garrett Southern Miss Wyoming Brice Gunter Air Force ***Jackson Hoskins New Mexico Jamel James Arizona St. Arkansas Florida St.Houston Mississippi Notre Dame Texas Tech USC Washington West Virginia ***Demun Mercer Rice SMU Rusmin Nikocevic Arkansas ***Kristofer Petersen New Mexico Dila Rosemond Houston Purdue Utah ***Lawrence White Wyoming Germod Williams Northwestern Rice UTEP Demetrius Woodard North Texas Marshall UTSA Unranked One 3* prospect Tevin Broussard Kansas St. Texas St. Florida Intl.Texas Tech Justyn Eddins Arkansas St. N. Mexico St. Texas St. W. Michigan Wyoming Aneas Henricks Rice Texas St. Wake Forest Kenneth O'Neal Indiana LA Monroe Tulsa Jalen Rhodes Colorado St. New Mexico N. Mexico St. North Texas Jarveon Williams Florida Atlantic Northwestern Rice Texas St. so just to not show "bias" we will have north Texas with 9 players listed by Rivals as having other offers even though Rivals actually only has 6 players actually listed with other offers, but we will give them credit as having other offers on Rivals based on the other offers on Scout......we will only count players for Texas State and UTSA that had other offers actually listed on Rivals so not north Texas has 9 players on "Rivals" with other offers on "Rivals" and Texas State has 15.....but we will leave the 4 off that I did not count before because I thought their other offers were not equal to the teams that north Texas players had other offers from like UTEP and Memphis.....so we will count Texas State at 11 instead of 15 and we will have UTSA at six players with other offers so clearly north Texas put a whooping on UTSA as far as players listed on Rivals with other offers and they were very very close to the same number of players with other offers listed on Rivals as Texas State.....Texas State had a total of 33 other offers with one single player having 10 alone and this is not counting the 4 players that were added to this list, but not counted (only the offers from the original 11 players from the previous thread)....we will use all the offers from other teams from north Texas from both Scout and Rivals and that has north Texas at 17 and we will add three more phantom offers because we know that Rivals ignores north Texas in general so north Texas has 20 total other offers and we will add another three for phantom other offers on Scout so north Texas has 23 total other offers on "Rivals".......while Texas State has 33 and one player with 10 alone which is nearly half of the north Texas total......UTSA has 23 other offers on Rivals as well.....so north Texas is VERY competitive with UTSA and really really close to Texas state as well and again north Texas put a whooping on UTSA with 9 total players on "Rivals" while UTSA only had 6 and UTSA was unranked on Rivals while north Texas was #117 and Texas State was #81 Texas State had eight 3* recruits while north Texas and UTSA had none......we now know thanks to untlifer that Rivals downgraded one of the former 3* recruits for north Texas as well and we can all be sure they probably did it to others as well......so we will cut the eight 3* players for Texas State down to 4 and we will add two #* players to north Texas so now north Texas has two 3* players and Texas State has four 3* players......this of course will change the rankings as well so we will take 10 places off of north Texas and they are now #107 and we will add 20 places to Texas State so they are now #101 and UTSA stays unranked with zero 3* players.......so now that I have removed all my "bias" from the equation and compared Rivals to Rivals only (which itself is "biased") it is clear that north Texas is stomping UTSA in recruiting and very very competitive with Texas State and similar teams that north Texas looks to keep up with but just to be sure lets do Scout as well Scout North Texas #124 Texas State #104 Two 3* prospects Lucas Askew Memphis New Mexico North Texas Wyoming Marcus Dallas Florida Atlantic Illinois Middle Tennessee Nevada Trey Garrett Arkansas State Southern Miss Wyoming Brice Gunter Air Force Jackson Hoskins New Mexico Jamel James Arizona State Arkansas LSU Mississippi Notre Dame Texas Tech West Virginia Tyler Jones New Mexico Demun Mercer Rice SMU Kris Petersen New Mexico Germod Williams Northwestern Rice Demetrius Woodard Marshall New Mexico UTSA Ranked #100 Two 3* prospects Trevor Baker Idaho Tevin Broussard Kansas State Texas State Reed Darragh Navy Justyn Eddins Arkansas State Wyoming Aneas Henricks Cincinnati Tulsa Kenneth O'Neal Tulsa ULM Jalen Rhodes North Texas Jarveon Williams Florida Atlantic Northwestern Rice Texas State Texas state has 11 players listed with other offers on Scout while north Texas has 9 players with other offers on "Scout" and north Texas has 23 other teams offering players on "Scout" while Texas State has 28.....but some of those offers are from New Mexico and the like that really can't compare to UTEP and Memphis and some of the programs that north Texas players are getting offers from....so we will take 3 off from Texas State and they have 25 offers now UTSA has only 8 players listed on Scout vs the 9 players listed on "Scout" with other offers for north Texas so again scoreboard north Texas there and on Scout UTSA only has 15 total other offers and probably 3 of those can't compare to UTEP and Memphis so we will say UTSA has 12 other offers VS the 23 for north Texas so again major score board for north Texas UTSA was ranked #100 on Scout, Texas State #104 and north Texas #124 and north Texas had no 3* offers and Texas State and UTSA each had two.....but again we know that players get downgraded by going to north Texas and because UTSA has UT in the name and because Texas State is trying to fool the ranking services into thinking that they are the land grant university in Texas with the Texas State name we will subtract two 3* players from UTSA and Texas State and add two to north Texas so now UTSA and Texas State have ZERO 3* players and north Texas has two so score board there as well against both Texas State and UTSA and that will of course change the rankings so we will add 20 places to UTSA and Texas State and subtract 10 from north Texas so now UTSA is #120 and Texas State #124 DEAD LAST SUCKERS EAT IT TEXAS STATE and north Texas is #114 so again north Texas is clearly recruiting as well or better than Texas state and UTSA and other teams they are looking to keep competitive with and there is little to worry about when the "bias" is removed and accounted for just for fun lets compare to Todge recruiting class #3 Todge 2009 (The recruiting year leading into year 3 the turn it around year!) Rivals north Texas #104 Three 3* players Austin Fitzpatrick Florida Atlantic LA Lafayette New Mexico Jamaal Jackson Louisiana Tech Kelvin Jackson LA Monroe Daniel Mayberry UTEP Daniel Prior Iowa St. Louisiana Tech LA Monroe Rice SMU UTEP Ira Smith Louisiana Tech Mississippi UAB Tyler Washington Louisiana Tech SMU UTEP Rivals #104.....three 3* players, seven players with other offers and 18 total other offers....this VS the 2012 class with 9 "Rivals" players with other offers, "two" 3* players and "23" other offers and a #117 ranking......Todge played at UT and so we will take two 3* players off of his 2009 class and we have north Texas 2012 with two 3* players when we account for the rankings services downgrading current north Texas players and we will subtract 10 from the 2012 class ranking to get it to #107 and add 10 to the 2009 class to get it to #114 so right there for ALL TO SEE CLEARLY the 2012 class for DMac was easily as good as the Todge 2009 class that was heading into year #3 the "turn it around year" Scout Two 3* prospects Tie for #116 (so we will say #117) Darius Carey Tulane Austin Fitzpatrick Florida Atlantic Louisiana Jamaal Jackson Louisiana Tech Daniel Prior Iowa State Louisiana Tech SMU Utah State Ira Smith Louisiana Tech Louisville UAB Tyler Washington Louisiana Tech SMU UTEP Kyle White Louisiana ULM 7 other players with offers on Scout vs "9" for 2012 on "Scout" .....16 total other offers for 2009 VS "23" for 2012.....we subtract two 3*s from 2009 and add two to 2012 so 2012 has two 3* players VS none for 2009 and then add 10 to the 2009 rankings and subtract 10 from 2012 so we are at #107 for 2012 VS #126 for 2009 again when using Scout and removing the "bias" we see that DMac is moving well ahead of where Todge had drug us to in 2009 and things are really looking up for recruiting I would imagine there is still some "bias" in here and untlifer can come help clean that up, but CLEARLY untlifer is correct and recruiting is getting better and better and north Texas is very competitive and even putting a whooping on teams they want to compete with for recruits

north Texas #117 rank for overall class with Rivals in 2013 you listed 8 players including one with the omni-present GMG staple of "rumors say" and another with the omni-present GMG staple of "reported, but NOT ACTUALLY REPORTED" (stealth reporting to go along with stealth recruiting, stealth fundraising, and stealth baseball ) with a total of 12 offers you listed including the one that was stealth reported.....just for kicks we will give Kidsy credit for three offers from who knows where, but why not since that is how things are done here on GMG so a total of 15 other offers all of the offers below are just going by the Rivals page Scout was not used in this comparison so for comparison since you ask Texas State #81 Team Ranking Lucas Askew Memphis Rice SMU Tulsa Wyoming Jeff Banks Nevada Donta Clanton Arkansas St. Kentucky UTSA Marcus Dallas Jr Illinois Nevada Trey Garrett Southern Miss Wyoming Brice Gunter Air Force Jamel James Arizona St. Arkansas Florida St.Houston Mississippi Notre Dame Texas Tech USC Washington West Virginia Rusmin Nikocevic Arkansas Dila Rosemond Houston Purdue Utah Germod Williams Northwestern Rice UTEP Demetrius Woodard North Texas Marshall UTSA Unranked Tevin Broussard Kansas St. Texas St. Florida Intl.Texas Tech Justyn Eddins Arkansas St. N. Mexico St. Texas St. W. Michigan Wyoming Aneas Henricks Rice Texas St. Wake Forest Kenneth O'Neal Indiana LA Monroe Tulsa Jalen Rhodes Colorado St. New Mexico N. Mexico St. North Texas Jarveon Williams Florida Atlantic Northwestern Rice Texas St. so Texas State had several three star players, a single player (Jamel James) had 2/3 the offers of all the north Texas state players combined (10 for Jamel and 15 for north Texas) and Texas State had 11 players with other offers from D1-A programs of any type of similar reputation to the ones you listed and Texas State had players with a total of 33 offers that were actually reported on VS 15 for north Texas UTSA was unranked in 2013 for recruiting, but they had 6 players with actual reported offers Vs 8 (including 2 with stealth reported offers) for north Texas and UTSA had a total of 23 actually reported on D1-A offers from teams that were similar to teams that you included (like Memphis and UTEP).....and both Texas State and UTSA had some of those players with more offers than that, but they were not listed here because they were not up to the level of a Memphis or UTEP type program and that is just looking at two programs that are rolling into their first years of playing D1-A football here in Texas (and one the first few years of playing any level of football) and that had a losing record or that beat the Bacon States of the world last year for some of their wins (although one had 4 D1-A wins and the other had 3 D1-A wins while north Texas had 3 D1-A wins) and one of those teams is going to be the only Texas team in the Sunbelt so there is a response

clearly you have taken your green tinted glasses off

Troy is not on the list because they have an acceptance rate of 62.29% which is lower than north Texas which is 63.98%.....which is higher than UH at 63.56% http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/search.result/AL+y http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/search.result/TX+y this is what happens when you get "information" from ChaCha and pretend as though it has meaning

just so much nonsense in your post you just completely ignore all reality and spew garbage that tries to somehow get SMU, Baylor, Tech and a few other teams down in the dumpster with north Texas 1. how has A&M left Texas behind when their magnificent season landed them 3rd in their division in the SEC, they did not come close to winning the division, they did not play in a CCG, and they did not play in a BCS game, they still have not played in a BCS game since the late nineties, they have never won a BCS game and they have not sniffed a national championship in football since 1939 and while they did finish in the top 5 they have done that one time since 1956 which was last year (and something that Texas has done 5 times since 2000) they still bring in 60-70 million per year less than Texas in total athletics revenue and they are busy screaming WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP in Johnny Football's ear so often he is ready to GTFO of College station right now in big boy conferences results on the field actually matter not what reporters write or what people on message boards that are trying to support their foolish visions believe 2. if you want to talk about football alone then Baylor has done less than TCU, but if you include mens BB, womens BB, and Baseball (other sports matter to major conferences even if they do not matter as much as football and mens BB especially brings in NCAA dollars) then Baylor has been very competitive in the Big 12 and well more than TCU including of course what TCU did in other conferences 3. trying to say that schools would compete in the CUSA or the MWC just by dropping down may or may not be a reality......you can't make the argument that A&M being in the SEC and coming in 3rd in their division and not playing in a BCS game somehow makes them a powerhouse or automatically means they will dominate Texas even though Texas has still accomplished more since 2000 than A&M has in their entire history and even though Texas still brings in almost twice the revenue as an athletics program than A&M and even though A&M is still paying back a loan from the academic side of the university while Texas pays money to the academic side and the LHN pays money to the academic side as well.....and all the worse in a few years when a coach has to walk into a top recruits house and say "we left the SEC for CUSA so we could compete so come play for us and compete to be the king of the losers"......boy that would sustain a program along with the massive loss in conference revenues, fan support, TV appearances, alumni donations and respect......which is why this thread is asinine to start with that is what made TCU unique.....they competed as the king of the dorks in a conference, MOVED UP, competed as the kings of the bigger dorks, MOVED UP, competed in the MWC, went to the BE and before they were there they were ask to the Big 12.......VS dropping down several notches and telling everyone they were ready to "compete" and then trying to get respect for doing so while their program falls apart from making one of the dumbest decisions in the history of sport 4. you repeatedly have this "vision" where Baylor, Tech, Vandy, Wake, Duke and on and on are going to be left out of the programs that move up to whatever is above D1-A (and of course the obligatory SMU will just fold their program while north Texas will flourish even though north Texas failed to flourish in D1-AA for 15+ years there) you conveniently ignore the basic reality that as of now in the SEC, Big 12, Big 10, PAC 12 and ACC there are 64 teams + ND and even after the last of the recent shuffling is done there will be 64 teams + Notre Dame for 65 teams total.......64 teams is the least that has ever really been mentioned for a new higher level of NCAA football......so at most there is a SLIGHT chance that a single team would not make the cut so that ND could be included and more realistically it will probably be 80 teams.....and even if it is 64 teams there is very very little chance it will be one of the teams in the Big 12 that will be booted for ND since ND has been affiliated with the Big 10 and the ACC and since each of those conferences have just as many if not more teams that are terrible year in and year out.....and there is actually nothing that prevents D1-A+ from being 65 teams other than some desire to be even numbers of members in conferences and as far as the top D1-A teams now they have never really shown an interest in making it where each conference champion gets an equal shot at a play off or MNC they have always been more interested in having the top ranked teams face off which was why the BCS was started.....so that instead of two top teams being locked into the Cotton or Sugar or Rose Bowls there would be a mechanism for getting them to play each others.....and if the top teams break away they will surely still go with that method VS the "win the conference and playoff method......so ND could still have their place carved out with be ranked high enough and make the game or don't and none of the other teams in the conferences not named SEC, Big 12, Big 10, ACC or PAC 12 have a chance in hell of being invited at the expense of any current member of that conference.....Boise or NIU or whoever is not going to get the call while someone else gets the boot.....the major conferences have no use for Boise or NIU or any of the others unless they want to have 80 teams in the top division and there is not a chance in hell they are going to dump a team from their conference now to add ANY of the teams in the lower conferences.....not a chance in hell and not even for BYU at most it will be 80 teams or it will be 64 teams + a few independents like ND, BYU and maybe the service academies just to keep the US government from complaining (if they even complain) so your silly visions of teams being left out in exchange for others from the non-AQ conferences is just that.....your silly vision

it is interesting how wrong some can be http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelnoer/2012/08/01/americas-top-colleges-2/ The rankings are based on five general categories: post graduate success (32.5%), which evaluates alumni pay and prominence, student satisfaction (27.5%), which includes professor evaluations and freshman to sophomore year retention rates, debt (17.5%), which penalizes schools for high student debt loads and default rates, four-year graduation rate (11.25%) and competitive awards (11.25%), which rewards schools whose students win prestigious scholarships and fellowships like the Rhodes, the Marshall and the Fulbright or go on to earn a Ph.D http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/2012_Methodology.pdf so the Forbes methodology specifically includes nothing at all having to do with endowments other than the fact that some schools with a large endowment fund can keep tuition lower than those with a lesser endowment and therefor charge less tuition and have students graduating with less debt......but of course if you believe like someone below that is "hoarding cash" and is to be frowned upon.....that cash should instead be spent as fast as possible by maybe "investing it" in something like free tuition for everyone until it is all gone and then it is no reduction or free tuition for anyone because the money was all "invested" until it was gone so while a comparison of endowment dollars on a total or per student basis is not a factor in the Forbes rankings I suppose if one did not understand the basics of investing, finance, actuary science, personal finance or really anything having to do with money at all they would view schools having larger endowments being able to keep tuition lower and hold down student debt as a bad thing VS just "investing it" by spending it all like a pro sports player in a strip club until it is all gone and there is little to show for any of it for the long term and even with large financial endowments many private schools still charge a pretty steep tuition so endowment is hardly a factor in the Forbes rankings since student debt load is only 17.5% of the rankings criteria and that something that does not come close to being solely related to endowments even though endowments can play a part in keeping tuition down and offering financial aid to students.....which would play a part in student debt.....but of course many other factors can play a part in the 17.5% if the criteria that is based upon student debt as well um again how can 17.5% of the Forbes rankings that are "student debt" be "vastly overweighted" when that is a pretty small % of overall methodology and when endowment only is one of many factors that plays a part in student debt.....oh wait it can't be! as for US Snooze http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2012/09/11/methodology-undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights-2 financial resources is 10% and alumni giving (not really endowment since yearly alumni giving is often not directly placed in the endowment and alumni giving is a pretty good indicator of satisfaction with the education received) and then one could also stretch it a bit and look at faculty compensation which is only marginally related to endowments for faculty that chair professorships and the like and faculty compensation is really pretty standard at top private and public universities regardless of endowment size and that is 35% of 20% or 7% so you would be looking at 22% for "all about the money" and that is a pretty big stretch to include the full 7% or anything over a small portion of it and same with the full 5% for alumni giving.....so while endowments and "money" plays a larger part of the US Snooze rankings if you stretch the factors as far as you can it is far from a large portion of the overall rankings and at the end of the day endowment proceeds = facilities, student support, equipment, travel for research and on and on that can lead to a better overall educational experience for a lesser cost or with more financial aid offered......hardly something to consider without merit to consider or to dismiss as just looking at dollars saying that endowments are "hording money" instead of "investing it" has to be one of the least intelligent things posted on GMG in possibly forever and that is right at the same time as a thread thinking that the CUSA might convince teams to leave the SEC and ACC for CUSA......so well done you went where it is nearly impossible to go! thinking like the above is why the USA is filled with a massive number of people that don't have a weeks worth of savings to their name and it is why pretty much every level of government in nearly place in the USA is broke endowments ARE investments they ARE NOT "hording cash" unless one gets their financial sense and advice from pro sports players and lotto winners and politicians anyone that has even the most basic of financial sense, knows what actuary science is or that can spell finance and financial planning or investing knows that money that is invested to produce a return on investment is not being horded and they also understand that when you spend money on things that you intend to own or maintain for the long term those things require investment to keep them serviceable, to keep them from falling apart, to keep them relevant to current conditions, and to be able to afford to staff, use or run/operate them if someone that is "running" the CS department for a major university goes out and spends millions of dollars on a Cray 1 super computer back in 1978 and in doing so they "invest" pretty much all of their endowment funds in that single machine.....well in about 12-15 years from then when Moores Law (and a host of financial and actuarial mistakes) caught up to them they would have a computer that is a nice piece of history, eats up a ton of electricity, has fewer and fewer people that are interested in programming it and that can be outperformed by a Linux cluster that cost millions less to build, uses a ton less power, is much more powerful, and has plenty of people that can program it to perform a very wide variety of calculations and task and their leading edge computer department of 12-15 years ago would be a broke nothing of a department with no resources to keep "investing" and no faculty willing to stay around or come in new it is the same with a large telescope, a mass spectrometer, scanning electron microscope, electrophoresis equipment or genome sequencing equipment and on and on....if you "invest" all of your funds just to buy some piece of equipment and you leave nothing for the future to keep current or to operate the machine then you are just setting yourself up for future failure it is like an NBA player or a lotto winner that gets a huge check and "invest" it in a house for mom, some stupid looking gold jewelery, high dollar cars, and making it rain at the strip club with dolla dolla bills and "ace of spades'.......sure a house COULD go up in value, but we have all seen how that works lately and more importantly a house (even one that goes up in value over time) does not throw off dollars to maintain that house, pay the taxes, keep the lights on, or get new carpet after people put their Kools out on the floor (shout out to Billy Ray Valentine).....and same with a high end car.....even IF (and that is a HUGE IF) the value of that car stays the same the only way to actually keep a high end car holding it's value is to regularly pay tens of thousands of dollars for a certified technician to go over it and make adjustments, change out wear parts, and most importantly to DOCUMENT that a certified technician has done that at all the scheduled times to do so.....and that car affords ZERO return on investment while you own it so if you have "invested" the vast majority of your wealth in houses and cars and you have little or no money left over to keep those things up or pay the taxes or the operating expenses when your making it rain catches up with you and you have to liquidate those assets and they have not been properly maintained and people know you are in a bind.....at best you get 40% or 50% on the dollar for them and the lifestyle you could have afforded for life takes a huge hit FOR LIFE and all you have is the memories of the mammaries at the "club" and you have to go get a real job selling insurance or cars and your dreams of opening a chicken wings restaurant or a bar are faded and gone this is also why you see university auctions where formerly very expensive lab equipment is being sold for pennies on the dollar if it evens sells.....because no one wants used up dated junk that performs more poorly (or can't even perform) the same as newer, cheaper to operate, and more advanced equipment.....but the only way a university can afford to keep doing that is if they actually INVEST their endowment VS SPEND IT and financial planners, actuaries, retirement experts, CFPs and the like that specialize in INVESTING (not spending) say that a person, business, trust fund, investment portfolio, endowment or any sum of money that one wished to take, earn a return on from INVESTING (not spending) and have the corpus of that money remain in place AND more importantly keep up with inflation and allow that person to maintain their lifestyle and the things they have PURCHASED (spent money on not INVESTED) is that you can spend from 4.5% to 5% of the corpus of your investment yearly over the long term and weather the ups and downs of the markets AND keep up with inflation (because only an idiot wants to live in $100,000 in 1980 and roll into 2040 still living on $100,000 per year) so if one has ONE MILLION DOLLARS in investments the most they should look to spend is $45,000 to $50,000 per year....that is why people that say stupid things like "if I had a million dollars I would buy a house, a boat, and a nice car and retire" (some real idiots would call that "investing")....because #1 they have not even put that ONE MILLION DOLLARS to work for them yet and right off the top they are cutting down on the future earnings of that ONE MILLION DOLLARS by a huge portion.....if they spent $200,000 of it right off the top they would then be looking at a corpus of $800,000 and a SPENDABLE RETURN of $36,000 to $40,000 so they have lowered their yearly income drastically just by spending (investing to some fools) money right off the top VS putting the full ONE MILLION DOLLARS to work for them and allowing it to generate income before they start spending take a university as an example.....if they have a paltry $100,000,000 endowment they can spend $4.5 to $5 million per year and have that endowment last in perpetuity (provided they have decent investment advisers) .....but if they listened to the brain dead of the world they could also "invest" that money in a new $100,000,000 science research building and equip it with all the latest equipment.....and then (especially at a private university) they would wake up a few years with no endowment, a building that needs to be maintained and a bunch of labs filled with broken or dated equipment that needs to be replaced....and since science lab buildings are generally not income producing and there is nothing that guarantees that by building a science lab more income to maintain it will come in they now have infrastructure that they can't maintain and that is not only not attracting students, but is is driving students and faculty away because it is worn and filled with dated crap if they were a university that was properly run, that had anyone in the math or finance department that had a clue and a voice they would know this and they would instead spend $4.5 to $5 million dollars to renovate a lab in an existing building for a program they were already strong in and then they would have that endowment still in place for the future and they could afford to maintain hat lab and keep it current as technology advanced and that would serve to maintain their reputation for that program as one that has the available resources to keep current and on the cutting edge of the discipline....instead of having the reputation of the NBA star of that field of study that shot their wad one time and made it rain and now is old, worn, tired, broke down and dated and of no use to anyone and a liability VS an asset in 2008 right before the financial crash one of the biggest collections of some of the dumbest people on the planet called the US Congress had some of their most stupid members calling for investigating why Harvard and the like for having large endowments and only spending what those illiterates considered to be a small fraction of that money ( all the more ridiculous considering many of those same idiots were life long trust fund babies with their own massive investment portfolios) shortly after that when the market crashed Harvard as one example went from having 34 billion in endowments in 2007 to 36.5 in 2008 to 25.6 in 2009......so Harvard had lost 10 BILLION in investments in a single fiscal year and in 2010 it was 27.5 and in 2011 it was 31.7 in 2013 Harvard had an ANNUAL BUDGET of 3.7 BILLION so Harvard spending 5% of 36,5 billion would have $1.825 billion to spend (they usually spend a 3-5 year rolling average of endowment funds not just a yearly %) and then in 2008 it would have been $1.280 billion.....so their available money for their 3+ billion dollar total yearly budget would have declined over $500 million and worse of they had listened to the completely and totally financially ignorant and "invested" more of that endowment by SPENDING IT it only gets worse......because for every extra dollar you spend you have fewer dollars working for you in the future.....and for every dollar you spend on something like a building or lab equipment or lowered tuition.....when the down market years come you now have less money in your endowment, less money coming in from the proceeds of that endowment and you have additional labs, buildings or students to fund or you have to reduce financial aid and raise tuition all at the same time to make up for the fact that you were "investing money" by SPENDING IT......so you have taken a triple hit because you listened to the financially illiterate and ignored all sensible financial and actuarial advice it is difficult to believe that anyone that is in college much less has graduated from college would not understand even the most basic principles of investing and long term financial planning, but at a time in society when spending is viewed as investing and saving and investing in a conservative fashion is seen as hording or taking something from others that they could make better use of I suppose nothing should come as a surprise especially when dealing with the most financially challenged couple of generations in the history of ever

QUOTE:Emmit J UNT still will have among the lowest student athletic fees in the Sun Belt Conference and in Texas, even smaller than Texas State’s, a Football Championship Division (I-AA) school that is increasing its fee from $10 per hour to $20 over the next five years. I know the fee passed and we beyond this, but this fact should have (and still should) been trumpeted to anyone/everyone that would listen. ********************************************** but no one will listen EJ.....not even you......or is that the other EJ calling for the fact that the fee is only $10 not $20 dollars to be trumpeted to anyone/everyone that will listen? UNT90, on 16 Jun 2013 - 7:42 PM, said: Ya, I stopped reading after the first line. I'll believe the guy responsible for getting the fee passed over someone who spends far too much time hating UNT any day. you can listen to anyone you wish and when things don't work out the way they say they will you can still continue to listen to anyone you wish.....but the reality is you will be ignoring the reasons that things do not turn out the way you wish lets have a look back at past predictions by those "in the know" and those that are "simply right" shall we so the naming rights were sold for "20 million" with 11.8 million of that in actual cash and 5 million of that in "in kind" services to the university.....that is a very nice naming rights deal, but it is hardly $20 million going towards the stajium and Coke was never even mentioned by anyone http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/morning_call/2011/09/naming-deal-detailed-for-unts-apogee.html so again a great deal of insider hype VS reality http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/files/import/93528-Neinas%20report.pdf well know we don't have to assume do we.....and now we all know who was the 10 pounds in the 5 pound bag don't we A STUDENT FEE INCREASE WILL RESULT IN AN ADDITIONAL 4 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE UNT ATHLETICS BUDGET, BUT THE BULK OF THE FEE INCREASE WILL BE COMMITTED TO STAJIUM DEBT SERVICE so not only was there not an extra 6 to 7.5 million laying around in the goodie bag the fee did not even add a TOTAL of 6 to 7.5 million to the athletics budget and the money it did add was almost entirely used for stajium debt service or are you trying to say that the consultant named Chuck Neinas that north Texas paid a large amount of cash to analysis the program does not know what he is talking about as well? but don't worry about all of that because baseball is coming!! http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/blogs/knights-notepad/os-ucf-athletics-receives-majority-of-revenue-from-subsidies,0,728031.post The USA Today chart shows UCF made $40,993,870 in total revenues in 2012, down almost $2 million from the year before, but up more than $18 million from 2005. http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/248640/250/Athletics-taxing-USF-students-heavily so there is some good news here.....north Texas is competitive with USF and UCF on budgets.......from 2005... I will link page 4 of the above thread again because it contains some great post from 5 years ago here is another good one from way back in 2006 haha...2006!! boy you know where this is going to go! are we having fun waiting yet?......and it has been uh.....um....uh.....2 years......so I am just letting you know.... and about those "insider sources" that are "verified"... so we have secret recruiting.....secret fundraising.......secret athletics fee increases.....and now secret baseball!! was that a hit or a strike.....I don't know it is a secret so nearly 7 years ago baseball was said to be coming by 4 years ago and it is still not here and now is said to be coming in 2014 or 2015 and the athletics fee has still not been raised (but shhhhh EJ no longer wants us to talk about that any longer) there is no huge extra money from the current fee for other things besides the stajium bonds (Chuck Neinas has always been full of crap there is millions available) and there have been no big sellouts at Apogee and we know all the club seats have not been sold because there was a long thread on here where some people were angry because some fans had been invited up to sit in the club seats (as a sales point by SexyTime) and those that had donated and bought club seats were mad and wondering why they had paid for something that others were getting for free meanwhile down I-35 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTSA_Roadrunners_football In February 2006, the University of Texas at San Antonio approached Carr Sports Associates, Inc. to conduct a feasibility study and make recommendations to the university regarding an expansion of the athletics department the university facilitated a student referendum in September 2007 to gauge support for a fee increase On February 4, 2009, former Miami Hurricanes head coach Larry Coker announced he had applied for the head coaching job However in late January 2010, Hickey stated that the football program would attempt to join the Division I FBS subdivision by 2014 instead, citing an overall disappointment for previous plans. On November 10, 2010, it was reported that the WAC had offered UTSA, along with fellow Southland conference member Texas State and Sun Belt Conference member Denver an invitation to join its conference that would take effect in 2012. http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7866383/utsa-roadrunners-poised-exit-wac-conference-usa Conference USA is set to bring aboard Texas-San Antonio Future opponents I will let you read the list of future HOME and away opponents on your own and everyone is free to believe anyone they wish to believe no matter how big of a ten pounder they are in a five pound bag and no matter how often the say they are right (without ever really back it up) and then ignore when the truth comes out and they are wrong and no matter how many cute GIFs and little sayings and petty attempted comments about failing out or "she" or the like they use to try and prove their points VS using actual reality and then being shown to be wrong or being show to be way off base and way out in left field with their hugely inflated predictions and time lines hey if that is what works for you and gets you excited and you like to have those same conversations over and over and listen to those same insider sources say things are happening and just you want and the like....hey whatever floats your boat but then when reality sets in I suppose you can have fun starting that conversation all over again and going down the same path and even ignoring your own calls for everyone to make it known about how things are being done and how others are actually DOING more VS just talking about doing it or debating if it can even be done or coming around and letting everyone know why your insider sources told you it was not going to be done even though it could be done and everyone else does it

it is really not all that confusing unless one wants to try and cling to their status as super GMG insider with all knowledge of all goings on these are the same types of people that when the fee was first implemented said "no worries it can be raised and we are going to max out that raise every year"....well the fee was first implemented in the fall of 2011 at $10 and as it very clearly states on the north Texas fee website the fee for the all of 2013 is $10......so those that have been telling you all is well we are going to max it out every year were clearly wrong and the reality is when people ask why the fee is half of what Texas State can charge for 15 hours and half of what UTSA can charge for 12 hours the simple answer is because that is where the BOR and lee the idiot desire the fee to be and that is where it has remained since the fall of 2011 and where it will remain at least through the fall of 2013 so it will not have been raised for at least 2.5 years it is easiest I suppose for many to blame Brett Vito (shout out to scotty and the S board) or they can blame SexyTime and demand that Brett Vito and BigSexy be fired for not reporting daily about how the fee needs to be raised or for not going into their bosses office every day and demanding the fee be raised, but at some point Brett and the PizzaMan have to realize that those that have the ability to raise the fee are simply not interested in doing that so they can either report on other things and spend their time on other athletics endeavors, or they can browbeat people about things and probably be ask to find a new job eventually or they can work with what they have and hope something changes in the future if you read the actual legislation for Texas State http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00161F.htm and for north Texas http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/SB00473F.HTM there are things that are similar and things that are different.....the one for Texas State specified a single YEARLY raise of 5% and anything above that required a student vote......and that is exactly what Texas State did.....when they decided to move up to D1-A they had a vote by the students and the students voted to set the fee at $10 and allow the administration to raise it $2 per year for 5 straight years to $20 if they saw fit to do so.....and that is what happened and now in 2013 the fee is finally at $20 if you look at the north Texas legislation and you want to read it where it can be raised over and over you would really have to question why all the other language is in there about student votes and students setting a max amount in that vote and really why the 10% language is even in there......because if you read that it can be raised over and over 10% at a time then you would also see there is no YEARLY restriction as well......so just as fast as the BOR could vote yea or nay they could raise the fee 10% at a time to any level they wish over and over and over again.....$11 now $12.10 two minutes later $13.31 after that and on and on until it gets to any amount they wish...again that is just a ridiculous interpretation considering all of the other language that is contained in the bill about a student vote and setting the fee at $10 to start because it if can be raised over and over just based on a BOR vote with no yearly restriction or no monthly or even weekly restriction then the rest of that language is just a waste and would not have been included and all the worse from the point of view of "does the administration care" for those that view setting the fee at the same level as Texas State and UTSA as "caring" is IF (and it is a huge stretch to believe so) the BOR could really just vote over and over and over as fast as they can to raise it 10% at a time or even yearly(there is no language for a yearly restriction)......why have they not done so......why have they not done what all the "insiders" and the smoke blowers and sunshine pumpers said was a sure thing...and even if out of some sort of "just because" the only wanted to raise it 10% a year they could have raised the fee 10% immediately after the legislation was approved and had it at $11 dollars in the fall of 2011 and they could have then had it at $12.10 in the fall of 2012 and at $13.21 in the fall of 2013.......but in spite of all insider information and all assurances that all was well and everything was taking shape and the max was going to be voted in place every time it could be (which if you read it the way some do is as fast as the BOR can vote on it since there is no restrictions on how often it can be raised 10% by that silly interpretation) the BOR has not seen fit to vote on raising the fee a single time and they have not seen fit to put another vote to the students to see if they want to further raise the fee so while Texas state since the fall of 2011 has taken their fee from $16 dollars to $20 dollars (not only did the students vote to allow that to happen, but the university administration and BOR followed through on that ability and actually DID raise it each year) north Texas has seen fit to raise their fee from $10 in the fall of 2011 to a whopping $10 dollars in the fall of 2013.....for a grand total of ZERO now I realize that Brett probably Vitoed that (haha see what I did there) and SexyTime said that working with a larger budget than he currently has was not sexy and the UT System and Texas A&M and Texas Tech and other boogie men got in the ear of the BOR and affable semi-retired VLR and strong armed them into not raising the fee, but it is amazing that those same forces were not even able to do that same thing to UTSA that is just a "branch campus" of all powerful Austin and the were not able to go down the street from the UT System offices in Austin to the Texas State System offices in Austin and make those same threats and strong arm tactics in person so while it might be fun to be all knowing and an insider and read legislation any way you see fit the reality is until Brett Vito and BigSexy are run out of town, the north Texas BOR and administration is staffed with people that have a spine and or no major skeletons in their closet to be hung over their head and that can stand up to and resist the bullying tactics of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, UH, SMU, Baylor, UTEP, TCU and Rice the fee is not going to increase.......or perhaps one could put down the sunshine pump, step away from the smoke blower, stop blaming the beat writer for the local rag, understand that the AD has a boss that he has to answer to and that boss has an idiot that he has to answer to and that idiot has the BOR basically rubber stamping his stupid ideas and realize that the chancellor and the BOR really have no interest in raising the athletics fee even 10% in the same time that Texas State has raised theirs $4 and you can run off all the reports, forum members and ADs you wish, but that is only going to make it easier for the chancellor and the BOR to keep on doing as they wish and ignoring the desires of those that would like to make sure athletics is funded to keep up with others that are just now moving up to D1-A and already have in place an athletics fee that is able to charge up to $90 to $150 more per student per semester than what north Texas has in place it is not about being the smartest person in the room it is about saying at some point you have to stop listening to all the "insiders" and those that say "it is getting done" and you have to stop blaming the reporters and the AD and you really have to look at the reality of the situation and ask if the ability to raise the fee is there why is it not being done and if the ability to raise it is not there why is something not being done about that other than some "insiders" telling everyone to remain calm super top secret plans are in place that will soon all be reveled to you in due time.....and then IF anything ever happens it takes MUCH longer than everyone expects or hopes for or that they were lead to believe it would take and it almost always ends up being much less than was anticipated as well.....it is like top secret fundraising (we recently saw that) or top secret presidential searches or top secret moves to get professional programs tied to the main campus instead of the community college component of the north Texas system and on and on so you can stick with the tl.dr and the cute GIFs and then in 3-5 years you can wake up and ask WTF why does everyone else have a higher fee, why are they able to jump right into the same conference we have wanted to be in for a decade after their first provisional year in D1-A or you can start to look at the real issues and understand what is being done (and not done).....and then I suppose you can blame Brett Vito again and call for the firing of SexyTime.....and then you will get a real wake up call when things stay exactly the same or get worse

this post is incorrect 1. what the students passed does matter 2. the language of the law says that the athletics fee can be raised a single time to a max of 10% and that is it period 3. UT and Texas Tech and A&M had nothing to do with inserting anything it was put in place by Dan Patrick that represents north west Harris County and has a BA degree from the university of Maryland Baltimore so he is hardly a UT or TAMU or Texas Tech homer 4. the language for Texas State is NOT the same and also the language in the "answer" part of this thread is not the actual bill it is the analysis of the bill and it is actually an analysis of the bill that was not the bill that was enrolled so it is missing parts of the bill that were actually voted in place and approved by the legislature here is the north Texas bill...the actual bill as it was enrolled not an analysis of a form of the bill before final amendment and enrollment http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/SB00473F.HTM here is the Texas State bill http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00161F.htm key differences the Texas State bill allows yearly unlimited raises of 5% if approved by the student government Sec. 54.5382. part D. key similarities.....the Texas State bill just like the north Texas bill allows for a greater increase in the fee if a student vote was taken.....and that is exactly what happened at Texas State........in 2008 Texas state followed the language of the above bill and held a student vote that allowed the fee to be increased to 10 dollars AND for yearly 2 dollar increases for the next 5 years to a total of $20 dollars http://www.txstate.edu/news/news_releases/news_archive/2008/02/referendumpasses021308.html there is one key difference with the Texas State bill as well it allows the fee to be in place with or without bond debt in place so the Texas State fee has no period when it might end 5. as I read the law the university has a 5 year window to issue bonds ad after that no new bonds will count towards keeping the fee alive only "refunding" or rebonding of the existing bonds that were issued in that 5 year period would count towards keeping the fee alive.....I might be wrong on this interpretation, but I am fairly sure I am not and the reason I am failry sure of that is because that language was put in for a reason and that reason was to make sure the fee dies at some point......if there was no intent for the fee to dir at some point there would be no language like that in the bill the bill would simply not have any clause like that (similar to the Texas state bill linked above that has no clause for issuing bonds within a time period or the fee ending when those bonds were paid off or bonds used to "refund" those bonds were paid off) even if a "refunding" does take place binds are not like a home loan where you have equity to borrow against if an asset increases in value or if you have paid enough to have equity.....when you "refund" bonds you "refund" for the amount owed on the existing bonds if you desire more money than that you have to issue new bonds and yes you can pay off the old bonds with some of the money from a new bond issue, but you have issued new bonds you have not "refunded" existing bonds and the way I am reading that language in the bill only bonds issued in a 5 year window count as bonds able to keep the fee alive and any NEW bonds issued after that do not count and "refunding" of existing bonds would count to extend the fee, but eventually because you pay down the bonds over time and "refund" less and less each time the bonds issued in that 5 year window and the ones issued to "refund" those bonds will go to zero and the fee will end http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/amendments/pdf/SB00473S3F1.PDF if anyone wanted actual clarity of the intent of that amendment I am sure they could email Dan Patrick and ask him what the intent of that is and the true meaning....I read it to mean that only bonds issued in a 5 year period (and bonds that refund those existing bonds issued in that 5 year window) keep the fee alive and that NEW bonds issued after that 5 year window do not serve to keep the fee alive and again when you "refund" existing bonds you do not add new money you refund for a lesser and lesser amount each time because you have been paying on those bonds and eventually it goes to zero IMO if the intent was to have an athletics fee that stayed in place forever the language in the amendment above never would have been put in place like the bill for Texas State that has no such language this is exactly what has been stated over and over....the fee can be increased a single time up to 10% unless approved by the students.....so without a vote of the students the fee for athletics can be increased to a max of $11 dollars and any higher than that requires a new vote of the students and it cannot be raised any higher than $11 dollars ever without a vote of the students with the current legislation in place again the key difference is that the administration at Texas State had used their available 5% YEARLY increases and the HAD A STUDENT VOTE to increase it more......while the administration at north Texas has not used their SINGLE ONE TIME 10% (NOT YEARLY) raise nor have they seen fit to have a student vote to allow it to be raised to more than $11 dollars so why would anyone really be concerned about the fee being able to be raised 10%, 20%, 50% or even 1000% (it can be raised ONE TIME FOR 10%) when the administration for over 2 years has declined to raise the fee the single allowed 10% without a student vote.....that makes no sense......"well we can only raise the fee 1 time for a dollar and that is not good enough so lets just do nothing because really we want to raise the fee 1000%, but all we can do is raise it a dollar so we will just do nothing".......ok well actually maybe that does make sense to an idiot like lee jackson, but not to anyone else actually UT and TAMU have a relatively low out of state enrollment http://www.collegexpress.com/lists/list/percentage-of-out-of-state-students-at-public-universities/360/ the site above has TAMU at 1% lower than the out of state enrollment for north Texas and 2% below Texas Tech and UT the same as Texas Tech and only 1% above north Texas and this Daily Texan article has the incoming freshman class for UT at 8.3% out of state students (vs the above numbers that are total student body) http://dailytexanonline.com/opinion/2013/02/20/top-ten-shuts-out-out-of-state-students and the above article from 2013 also points out that peer universities for UT like tOSU, Wisconsin, and Penn State have significantly higher out of state enrollments so while it is true that students like UT and TAMU because they can get a very high quality of education for a low cost even as out of state students UT and TAMU are not enrolling a large number of out of state students as a % of overall enrollment nor are they enrolling near the % of out of state students that peer public universities enroll and in Texas all universities are baseline funded the same even UT and TAMU and PVAMU.....they are all funded using the exact same two formulas for "infrastructure" and for "instruction and operations"....every university including TAMU, UT Austin and PVAMU are funded with those formulas (the only difference for UT Austin, TAMU, and PVAMU is "excellence funding) each formula starts out using enrollment as a basis and then they have types of degrees and graduate and undergraduate enrollment as scales in the I&O Formula liberal arts is normalized to "1" and it scales up from there to sciences, business, engineering and then pharmacy or vet programs and the like and then there are parts of the formula for graduate VS undergrad enrollment......because liberal arts degrees have less expensive hiring cost for professors VS engineering or pharmacy of Vet programs it is similar with the Infrastructure formula only "space utilization" is also accounted for, but again it is based on the idea that liberal arts do not require large expensive labs that are "single use" in nature and engineering and the like require much more technology and space to accommodate that technology and graduate students especially in the hard and physical sciences and engineering (vs the soft and social sciences) will be working in specific use labs so the formulas are weighted in terms of funding for the various degrees offered and the level of students enrolled as for PUF VS non-PUF participating universities the only difference there (again besides UT Austin, TAMU and PVAMU) is that PUF participating universities (including the three singled out) get their formula infrastructure funding from the PUF instead of getting it from general state revenues while non-PUF participating universities get their infrastructure formula funding from general state revenues......ALL universities in Texas get their I&O funding from general state revenues and ALL state universities in Texas use the same formulas for both infrastructure and I&O with UT Austin, TAMU, and PVAMU AFTER all the PUF participating universities have their formula infrastructure funding covered from the AUF (the portion of the PUF that is paid out each year for universities to spend) the remaining money left over in the AUF is split 2/3 UT Austin and 1/3 TAMU/PVAMU for "excellence" and those dollars are hardly the lions share of the higher education dollars in Texas and they are not even the lions share of overall state funding for any of those three universities much less the lions share of those three university's budgets also in Texas there is "small university" funding as wellt hat goes to Sul Ross, north Texas dallas, UH Downtown UT Tyler and some others because the cost of administering a university is relatively "fixed" for smaller schools VS larger schools (economies of scale) so a smaller university still has a president and computer systems and a library and on and on for 5,000 students VS 50,000 students and as the university gets larger the cost of that fixed (or relatively fixed) overhead declines on a per student basis so UT Austin, TAMU and PVAMU do get additional funding over and above formula funding for "excellence" that is the remainder of the AUF (spent portion of the PUF) after the infrastructure formula funding is covered for all the PUF participating universities is covered, but it is far far far from the lions share of state higher ed dollars and it is not even close to the lions share of state funding or budgets for those universities and all the other universities in Texas are funded equally after that....so there really is no politics involved as an aside here is the 2012 total state funding for each university in Texas ranked on a per FTFE and FTSE basis and then only the emerging research universities as well (full time faculty and full time student equivalent)....so looking at those numbers one can see that some universities are getting a disproportionate amount of state funding per full time student and per full time faculty member, but those universities are not UT Austin, TAMU or PVAMU and they are really not any of the emerging research universities......and more clearly one can see where WASTE AND POLITICS leads to universities not having the funding they desire because it is being WASTED on economic development projects in specific areas (hint hint look right at the very very very tippy top) FTFE University of North Texas at Dallas $150,430 $13,139 Texas A&M University-Texarkana $122,020 $11,802 The University of Texas of the Permian Basin $112,157 $10,442 Texas A&M International University $100,491 $7,802 Sul Ross State University $98,503 $12,883 The University of Texas-Pan American $87,598 $5,920 Texas A&M University-Central Texas $86,873 $9,093 Texas Southern University $79,066 $8,421 Texas A&M University at Galveston $77,353 $10,024 The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679 Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961 University of Houston $69,546 $6,002 The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584 Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi $68,723 $6,164 The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984 University of Houston-Victoria $66,904 $5,784 Texas A&M University-San Antonio $65,380 $6,537 Texas A&M University-Kingsville $64,987 $6,958 Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488 Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871 Texas A&M University-Commerce $61,471 $5,156 The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105 The University of Texas at Tyler $59,999 $6,475 West Texas A&M University $59,741 $5,481 Lamar University $59,717 $4,660 Angelo State University $57,142 $5,930 Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017 The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949 The University of Texas at Brownsville $56,554 $3,844 Prairie View A&M University $55,498 $5,608 Tarleton State University $54,101 $5,097 Texas Woman's University $54,048 $5,310 Stephen F. Austin State University $52,420 $5,164 University of Houston-Clear Lake $48,711 $5,358 Sam Houston State University $47,891 $3,791 Midwestern State University $47,423 $4,981 University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204 University of Houston-Downtown $37,350 $3,514 By FTSE University of North Texas at Dallas $150,430 $13,139 Sul Ross State University $98,503 $12,883 Texas A&M University-Texarkana $122,020 $11,802 The University of Texas of the Permian Basin $112,157 $10,442 Texas A&M University at Galveston $77,353 $10,024 Texas A&M University-Central Texas $86,873 $9,093 Texas Southern University $79,066 $8,421 Texas A&M International University $100,491 $7,802 The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584 Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961 Texas A&M University-Kingsville $64,987 $6,958 The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679 Texas A&M University-San Antonio $65,380 $6,537 The University of Texas at Tyler $59,999 $6,475 Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi $68,723 $6,164 Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017 University of Houston $69,546 $6,002 The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984 The University of Texas-Pan American $87,598 $5,920 Angelo State University $57,142 $5,930 Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871 University of Houston-Victoria $66,904 $5,784 Prairie View A&M University $55,498 $5,608 West Texas A&M University $59,741 $5,481 University of Houston-Clear Lake $48,711 $5,358 Texas Woman's University $54,048 $5,310 Stephen F. Austin State University $52,420 $5,164 Texas A&M University-Commerce $61,471 $5,156 The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105 Tarleton State University $54,101 $5,097 Midwestern State University $47,423 $4,981 The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949 Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488 Lamar University $59,717 $4,660 University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204 The University of Texas at Brownsville $56,554 $3,844 Sam Houston State University $47,891 $3,791 University of Houston-Downtown $37,350 $3,514 Research and emerging Research Only The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679 Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961 University of Houston $69,546 $6,002 The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584 The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984 Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488 Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871 The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105 Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017 The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949 University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204 The University of Texas at Austin $69,135 $7,584 Texas A&M University $69,559 $6,961 The University of Texas at Dallas $73,984 $6,679 Texas Tech University $56,863 $6,017 University of Houston $69,546 $6,002 The University of Texas at El Paso $68,186 $5,984 Statewide Totals $63,397 $5,871 The University of Texas at San Antonio $60,828 $5,105 The University of Texas at Arlington $56,603 $4,949 Texas State University-San Marcos $63,646 $4,488 University of North Texas $43,935 $4,204

as has been pointed out it is not the athletics fee that is being raised it is the student services fee that was the same fee that was cut $3 when the $10 athletics fee was implemented here is a list of north Texas fees http://essc.unt.edu/saucs/tuition-and-fees.html#explainfee for comparison here is a list of fees for Texas State http://www.sbs.txstate.edu/billing/fee_definitions.html so starting this year Texas State will will be paying $20 for athletics in a dedicated fee that started at $10 and was raised $2 per year for 5 years as was voted on by their students north Texas students DID NOT vote to allow a fee increase....below at the bottom of the linked story is the actual verbiage of what was passed by the north Texas students http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/oct/14/unt-athletic-referendum-voting-underway/ The athletic referendum on the ballot appears as follows: "In order for the University of North Texas to have a better Athletic program, which in turn can lead to national exposure and increased recognition of UNT; I agree to a dedicated Athletic Fee not to exceed $10 per semester credit hour, capped at 15 hours. Once the Athletic Fee is implemented, the Student Service Fee will be reduced by $3 per semester credit hour. The Athletic Fee shall not be implemented until the semester the new football stajium is complete, which is expected to be fall 2011." the only thing that lee the idiot had changed or put in place was the end of the fee once the bonds are paid off and possible the language about only having it raised 10% without student approval and I have not seen anything that says the north Texas 2009A bonds issued that included the stajium were called and from what I have seen they were AA- when issued not AA.....there is a possibility they were rebonded when north Texas moved up to AA from AA- in the last year or so......of course north Texas is about to go back down to AA- most likely as was spelled out in the article about new dorms if the bonds were actually called and paid off (not refunded) then north Texas would have to stop charging the fee as per section J of the bill....and the way I read it it most likely refers to bonds specifically for the football stajium not any other bonded athletics project as has been assumed on here before so to sum it up the fee that Harrison (the OP) is bringing up is the student services fee not the athletics fee and they are two separate fees and the athletics fee can be raised a single time for a max of 10% without a student vote and the athletics fee can no longer be charged once the bonds (or refunded bonds) that were issued for that project have been paid off and there is no guarantee that any of the student services fee will go towards athletics (besides intramural) and for those that wonder how lee the idiot keeps his job it is because no one associated with north Texas in Denton cares or actually realizes that lee the idiot is using the Denton campus as a slush fund for dallas economic development projects and the BOR is perfectly OK with that and the governor doesn't care because he and the rest of the legislature has handed the north Texas system off to the dallas area idiot politicians to use as an economic development play toy in exchange for those idiots keeping out of the way of what the UT and Texas A&M systems are doing and really all the other systems in Texas as well......take north Texas....rape it, waste money, build unneeded and useless crap that under performs and stay the hell out of the business of what everyone else does and vote they way you are told on issues dealing with those other systems in exchange for the occasional vote for what dallas proper wants to waste money on if the funds are available it should be apparent with the "nation wide search" for the new president of the HSC in Fort Worth that resulted with.....viola!....the interim yes man friend of idiot lee instead of bringing in fresh blood and it SHOULD be apparent here in the next 9 months of so when some chair warmer is hired to be the president of the Denton campus that will surely have no experience running a "major research university" if any experience at all as the head person of any university of any size or stature......it will be another person that keeps a seat warm and signs the things that lee the buffoon says to sign.......it should have been obvious with the temp hire and then full time retention of affable retired guy that is finally retiring again, but some like to avoid the truth.....it should also be obvious when Denton students in majors that have been long associated ith north Texas are having their classes and department moved to Tshacks while dallas students have a building that was built with "system money" and "belt tightening" on a "calculated risk" and they are getting a $70 million dollar reading center bonded out while Denton students are paying huge new fees for the student union so it is not bonded out as much and yet there is no money for actual long term buildings for the dance and fashion students to hold classes in....they get Tshacks.....but really NICE Tshacks though!! lee the idiot cares nothing about Denton, improving Denton, having Denton compete with any of the emerging research universities in Texas or anything other than keeping enrollment up and most fees low so there is room to raise overall tuition that can then cover "system" projects without people asking "where did that dedicated money go" it should also be apparent with the "endowment campaign" that was really just tabbing up the last 8 years of "secret fundraising" and then adding two years of "public fundraising" onto that at the "aggressive" goal of meeting the same pretty unimpressive fundraising totals met most of the last decade or so.....and the way that lee the idiot got chumped by his heavy hitter fundraising buddy bill lively left after less than a year when he pinky promised lee the idiot he would stay at least a year to three years and also just to be clear when lee the idiot was hired it was not because he has connections to get things done in the legislature it was because he was suppose to have big money fundraising connections.....lee the idiot was a nobody do nothing county judge in dallas county not some political heavy weight and he is also apparently not that big of a philanthropic heavy weigh either.....he is really just a yes man idiot for the loser politicians of dallas proper and dallas county and he is a no one to the legislature and apparently to big donors as well and for those that refuse to understand the truth http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/SB00473F.pdf#navpanes=0 read the legislation again it allows a SINGLE 10% raise without a student vote period....not per year....JUST ONE and no one at Texas A&M or UT even bothered to waste their time worrying about north Texas and north Texas building a stajium they could care less also read section J (j) AA The fee may not be charged after the fifth academic year in which the fee is first charged unless, before the end of that academic year, the university has issued bonds payable from the fee, in which event the fee may not be charged after the academic year in which all such bonds, including refunding bonds for those bonds, have been fully paid. it reads in plain language that the fee may not be charged after 5 years unless BEFORE that 5th year bonds have been issued....so new bonds cannot be issued for some other project after 5 years because they will NOT have been issued before 5 years after the fee was first charged and yes north Texas can continue to "refund" or rebond bonds to drag that out as stated at the end of section J, but the issue with that is you are still PAYING DOWN bonds as the years go by and as you pay down those bonds you can't "refund" or rebond new bonds for an amount larger than the bonds you are paying off.....when you "refund" or rebond bonds you are issuing new bonds to cover EXISTING bonds in an amount equal to the bonds that you are paying off.....if you want more than that then you have to issue NEW bonds.....and as the language states north Texas can issue new bonds for up to 5 years after the fee is first implemented, but after that 5 years passes no new bonds can be issued that count as bonds to keep the fee in place....and again as you PAY off binds each year the amount of outstanding debt of those bonds DECREASES so even if you "refund" or rebond those same bonds over and over eventually the amount you are able to "refund" or rebind equals ZERO and the fee ends also that would be a very very very financially irresponsible way to operate because you will be paying a great deal more in interest over time VS paying on the actual debt.....and also there is the issue of when you rebond or "refund" bonds you usually do so in order to gain a lower interest rate because the bond rating of your entity has improved (because you have more income or you have less debt).....when the 2009A series bonds for north Texas were issued (the stajium) they were rated at AA- which is the lowest high grade investment bond rating there is and lower than that and many investment trust and pension funds and the like will not buy them......north Texas has now moved up to an AA rating, but as was mentioned in a recent article about building new dorms there is a very good chance if those projects move forward it will move the bond rating back down to AA-......so if the stajium bonds have been "refunded" recently as AA bonds it would be highly financially irresponsible to refund them yet again as AA- bonds just to keep the stajium fee in place so eventually bonds issued for the stajium (and for athletics projects up to 5 years after the fee was first implemented) will be paid off and the fee will go away and that (in the case of north Texas) will most likely be right in the period of time the bonds were first issued for with no repeated rebonding or "refunding" to prolong that and even if rebonded or "refunded" eventually that will, go to zero as well because you will be able to rebond or "refund" less and less each time because you have been paying down

you may have finally read what I wrote, but unfortunately you were either unable to read or did not understand the link that I posted that is the Texas legislative bill that authorizes the athletics fee at north Texas http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/SB00473F.pdf#navpanes=0 again learn how to read and pay attention (g) AA The amount of the fee may not be increased to an amount that exceeds by 10 percent or more the amount of the fee as last approved by a student vote under Subsection (f) or this subsection unless the increase has been approved by a majority vote of the students enrolled at the university who participate in a general student election held for that purpose. (f) AA The fee may not be charged unless approved by a majority vote of the students enrolled at the university who participate in a general student election held for that purpose. The ballot for the election to approve the fee must state a maximum amount of the fee that may be charged per semester credit hour, not to exceed the maximum amount prescribed by Subsection (a). (a) AA The board of regents of the University of North Texas System may charge each student enrolled at the University of North Texas an intercollegiate athletics fee in an amount not to exceed $10 per semester credit hour for each semester or summer session. so technically I was wrong....it can be increased 10% without a student vote not 9.9%.....so it could be increased to $11 dollars without a student vote it is right there clear as day

it is really not "half an athletics fee" per say (I am not really sure there is a restriction on the total athletics fee that can be charged in Texas), but the north Texas fee is roughly half of what UTSA and Texas State charge.....Texas State will be at 20 per credit hour this year for 15 hours max for a total of $300 per student per semester max......UTSA is at 20 per credit hour for up to 12 credit hours or a max of $240 per student per semester north Texas is at $10 per credit hour for a max of 15 credit hours or $150 per student per semester so north Texas is at a max ability to charge $150 per student per semester while Texas State is at $300 (starting this year) and UTSA is at $240.....north Texas could raise their fee one time for an amount under 10% of what is currently approved without a student vote if they were to desire to raise it 10% or more there would have to be a student vote and the student vote would have to include an amount that would be the total amount able to be charged so north Texas without a student vote could raise their fee to $10.99, but so far the administration has declined to do so the reason the fee is the way it is has to do with the fact that $10 was what was voted on and there was no vote for any amount of yearly increase (unlike Texas state that voted to start at $10 and have a yearly increase of $2 for 5 straight years up to the $20 total) and the legislative bill has the verbiage that states the fee for north Texas can only be raised one time for less than 10% of the current total without a student vote.....the reason that $.99 was not increased last year or this year or probably any year is because of "cheap" being the north Texas mantra http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/SB00473F.pdf#navpanes=0 um he is "ranked so high" because he is the 4th most likely coach to get fired......so he is really "ranked" as #8

the simple reality is that north Texas has a "stajium" to pay for and if the fans are not going to show up the revenue has to come from somewhere north Texas is already looking at the reality of having their bond rating drop from where it is down one level when they try and build some dorms and a couple of other things and they are willing to live with that.....they already clipped the students for all they could on the union fees to "not sell bonds so greedy bankers make money" (even though they bond everything else out especially in south dallas) even though it was always said the stajium would be paid off over X number of years that does not mean they really want that to happen.....the north Texas system is facing the reality that dallas is going to suck wind (and bonding capacity) for years and years (decades) to come and The State of Texas is watching that like a hawk to not waste valuable state funds if they don't have to......and instead of realizing it is a turd and keeping it what it is they are going to double down and waste massive cash on a reading center and they are talking about dorms......all of that takes up bonding and the more bonding VS the same revenues or slightly higher revenues the lower bonds go in ratings and The state of Texas provides ZERO money to build dorms so that will come straight against university tuition revenues and dorm rental revenues (which will almost certainly be well below projections) they are already clipping the Denton students $15 per semester for the UCD, the law school most likely will not come near enrollment projections and if it does they will be most likely students that drop out of fail out at a much higher rate than expected and that is going to suck wind (and bonding capacity) for a long time as well....the law school got 52 million for a waste of money to fix up the old muny building and they have already spent 25 million on the top two floors of the UCD......and that 52 million again is more bonding capacity for the system used along with the 25 million already wasted and the law school has not held a single class yet and when it does if they are going to be "cheap" then they are going to have to find some other way to cover 77 million dollars in temporary and permanent space for the law school which means "system" belt tightening (which means Denton students getting clipped on more UCD fees and student union fees and Denton dorm cost going up much faster than the past decade or so ect) they have already used the "hire more faculty" and then not hiring more faculty trick on the Denton students to increase system revenues while holding expenses relatively steady so that is out and there are only so many Tshacks you can litter up your "flagship" with before it looks like a trailer park university also with the enrollment decline recently and then the less than expected enrollment growth the next year and north Texas behind both THECB and north Texas enrollment projections for 2015 the "system" is having to look at the reality of either stopping their investments in dallas and south dallas or further screwing the Denton students so the reality is I would be sure that RV is under pressure to reduce athletics subsidies from the academic side, increase the bond payments on the stajium to get it paid off sooner and he is getting that pressure while the team loses and the crowds are not showing up just for the new stajium http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20130517-regents-approve-housing-plans.ece currently the north Texas system is at AA for long term bonds the Texas Tech System is AA+ and the UT and TAMU Systems are both AAA and UH is Aa2 (Moodys) and Texas state is AA.....so if north Texas dropped down to AA- they would be the lowest rated system of all those in Texas and more importantly they would be just one downgrade from A+ which would possibly open up some issues about who can invest in the bonds being issued which lowers the value and significantly decreases the number of interested investors and even an AA- rating would put a crush on new system construction until it was bumped back up to at least AA again here is the attendance at Apoge since inception 28,075 UH 21,181 Indiana 13,142 FAU 17,815 ULM 17,011 WKU 15,962 MTSU 2012 22,259 TSU 21,823 Troy 17,055 Louisiana 17,534 stAte 15,963 USA 207,820 VS 30,850 X 11 = 339,350 (11,958 on average under capacity per game) so with the 11 games played so far north Texas is averaging 11,958 below capacity and they have foregone 131,350 tickets being sold and all of the parking and concessions that would accompany that and one of the interesting things is fans were about as interested in seeing Texas Southern in the second game of 2012 as they were seeing "Big Time" Big 10 school Indiana in the second game ever at Apoge so any way you slice it or price it even with $10 dollar tickets north Texas lost out on $1,313,500 in revenues over the last two seasons and really it is probably 2 or 3X that amount with concessions and a realistic ticket price and parking.....the lost revenues from that has to be made up somewhere and when you are averaging 19,000 or less per game even at $30 per person (total spend tickets and concessions ect) you have revenues of $570,000 per game and you can beat that going on the road for even a midlevel or lower level Big 5 team paying you for a one and done also Fouts will not get knocked down for free and that will probably come on the backs of athletics and even if it doesn't it still comes on the backs of the university and the system and The State of Texas does not cover things like that either....and one of the things government types often forget (most likely not the north Texas athletics administration at this point) is when you build something new and nice or add new facilities there is a cost incurred to maintain those facilities so they do not end up like Fouts 20 years later so when you have been playing in a paid for stajium that you are letting rot and you move to a new stajium and you want to actually maintain it you have additional expenses.....when you convert an old rotting HS gym into a mens BB practice facility for $3 million you have the expenses of AC, maintenance, and upkeep VS someone going around and checking to make sure the facility is still locked up and doing nothing every so often when you want to add baseball and you want a first class baseball facility and you are unsure what baseball attendance will be and your system is already looking at going to a bond rating of AA- as outlined in the article above well you need some revenues to pay for that baseball facility and then of course you need revenues to maintain it so it does not become the Fouts of D1-A baseball so when your football fans do not show up to the tune of 100K+ fans over two years.....when your season tickets do not move up dramatically with a new stajium and your mean green club membership does not jump dramatically not only can you not afford to buy in D1-AA games for $350,000, but you need to start looking at a body bag game + a 1 and done that will pay your $500K+ and at some point if you are charging $1 for tickets or giving them away for a bucket of chicken (even those tickets were actually sold the the KFC franchise owner) or running buy 1 get 5 free promotions you start to decrease the value of your product to the point that those 19K that are showing up say I am just going to stop buying tickets and instead I am going to call the Colonel and get a bucket and free tickets so even if RV is not being fully leaned on the system to get his stajium bonds paid off faster he is looking at needing to bring in revenues and he is looking at the fact that every aspect of the north Texas system is going to be looked at from a revenue perspective (and student unions, non-hired faculty, UCD fees and Tshacks are already maxed out and dorm charges are about to go maxed out) and dallas and south dallas are the new system priorities and they are already massively under performing and will probably continue to do so and that means that athletics is on the chopping block as far as baseball programs and other new facilities and facilities upgrades because the bonding capacity is used up so the reality is athletics needs revenues and if they can't get it with butts in Apoge they will get it elsewhere