GL2Greatness

north Texas does not have a law school and never will.....north Texas-dallas might have a law school in the future trying to say that Denton has a law school because of that is like saying UTA, UTD, UTEP, and UTSA have a law school because UT Austin has one and TAMS students for the most part are going to leave north Texas anyway since most of them view it as high school and if you ever ask them what they are going to do after they graduate TAMS the answer is "go to a good university"

those are renderings you dolt look at the posted photos of actual construction and look at the webcam for construction http://www.earthcam.com/clients/manhattanconstruction/universityofhoustonstadium/?cam=1 it is only what is commonly called an erector set stadium by those that are too stupid to look at the actual construction VS renderings

actually I was not a huge fan of the Dr. B hire.....I thought she was brought in because she was a mid level university person that had no real history of running a major university and would be more inclined to follow along with the policies of a "system" approach (really more like a north Texas system approach) where the majority of the components of the system act as parasites to the main campus.....instead she turned out to have some aspirations of being an actual university president and leading a single main campus of a university system that had other components trying to leech off of that main campus I had no use for her program to give full rides to high school C students and I thought starting a "peace studies" program was a joke at a time when it was clear that garbage degrees were just that degrees with no real use or prospects for a job.....I had no real use for her looking at McKinney and trying to take an old worn out building from them to make yet another useless system center.....but I did like the way she stood up to lee the idiot when he sucked the system from Denton, when he sucked the computing resources from Denton, and when he tried to stick the Denton students with the expense of buying the refurbishing the UCD (which was completely against what the THECB thought was a good decision) and of course all of those things were what got her fired so I admire that she wanted to actually be a university president and I admire that she actually wanted the main campus of the system to be the main campus not the main source of funding for other crap down in dallas proper, but unfortunately that got her fired and her other initiatives that were actually accomplished for Denton were just time wasters and showed a desire to keep down the path of being the collect all university of the metromess and the arts and liberal arts and useless degree factory that 20 year do nothing al hurley had created not all arts and liberal arts degrees are useless especially if properly implemented with a true liberal arts based education model, but the new paradigm of liberal arts being a series of indoctrinations with no room for critical thinking and no real hard math or physical sciences included and worse highly specialized degrees in useless subject fields is killing higher education in the USA.....the engineering programs were all but an after thought under her and suffered greatly with the move to the "research" campus and with the inability of some of them to obtain ABET accreditation in a timely fashion if at all mainly because of a complete and total lack of faculty so overall she was slightly better than expected, but that was coming from a point of view of VERY LOW expectations and after 20 year do nothing al a jackass would have been better and unfortunately temperamental lee the idiot tyrant is already well established as the overlord of the system with complete and unchallenged authority which is why affable retired guy was brought in and then kept on to be president while lee solidified the rape of the Denton campus....now that is pretty much in the bag they can bring in another al hurley type or move some other current lower level do nothing up to replace VLR and all will continue as before.....trudging along as a source of revenue for dallas economic development projects and growth for the sake of growth and being the leading catch all university in the DFW metromess staying several to many many steps behind some other emerging research universities and watching others move on by academically and most likely athletically as well I will say though one place I do differ from more and more on this forum is I am a big fan of Sexytime Pizza Man......has he made mistakes....yes he has.....does he need to work on football scheduling.....yes for sure.....have his coaching hires worked out as planned.....no but overall with everything he deals with on a daily basis from a highly unstable administration with few concrete plans and no real fundraising ability he has done a solid job......if Todge or The Dumpster Fire had worked out he would be Sexytime Pizza Man AD Emeritus at north Texas, but sometimes hires do not go as planned....and I believe he had his hands tied on some other hires like 50 Feet of Attitude and he was hung out to dry by do nothing al right from the start which taught him a thing or two about setting goals in a highly public forum.....but my issues with north Texas are not athletics in nature anyway....too many people on this forum and the forum of other mid-major (and especially lower mid-major) programs want to look at UT or TAMU or Alabama and wonder why the AD does not call the president of the university and say "we are doing this"......well because that only happens at UT, TAMU, OU, Bama Michigam, tOSU and about 8-10 other schools.....the rest take orders from the university president and at north Texas they take orders from the university president handed down by lee the buffoon

no major conference is going to take Boise period and especially not the Big 12......just will not happen here are a few more interesting facts 1. north Texas did not start playing football until 1913 and SMU was founded in 1911 so it would have been impossible for TCU and north Texas to have played football before SMU was founded....you know 1913 - 2013......the whole 100 years of north Texas football thing 2. the AAC only has 3 private schools total....Tulane, Tulsa, and SMU.......only two of those schools were ever in the WAC......and one of the two schools that was in the WAC was SMU and SMU was the school that UH joined with specifically to move to the AAC together.......so it would be impossible that UH would be upset about being stuck with "the same lot of private schools that they griped about taking from the WAC in 2005" because only two schools from the WAC are in the AAC and one of those schools UH specifically wanted to join with to move to the AAC with.....so Tulsa the other private school WAC team in the AAC is not a "lot" because a "lot" implies more than one......and there is only one former WAC private school that UH would be able to complain about being associated with (if they were complaining about that which I have never seen those complaints because they are made up in your head) because the other former WAC private school in the AAC UH specifically associated with to move to the AAC 3. it would be difficult for UH to be griping about any "lot" of private schools in the AAC because there are only 3 total and one of them is SMU that UH wanted to be associated with to go to the AAC which only leaves two others that UH might not want to be associated with (or that you are making up in your head that UH does not want to be associated with) and two really does not equal a "lot" 4. you have no clue what you are talking about

it will take much more than just getting an endowment of 400 million dollars for the Denton campus to reach the metrics for NRUF funding (and yes DJ Plum Plum I know what the metrics are I am stating that it will take much more than just a 400 million dollar endowment) like 45 million in restricted research VS 16.5 in 2012 and meeting more than two of the 6 metrics which is all north Texas met in 2013.....freshman class and member of PKP north Texas in Denton lost out on any potential law school for sure which is probably really a good thing since the law school will most likely not be very successful and there is little if any chance that it will produce the type of graduate that will have the resources to make a large donation (or pay off their student loans and live a decent life) anytime before the vast majority if not all of the members of this forum are pushing up daises and there is a possibility it has cost the Denton branch campus the opportunity to have a pharmacy program as well since that is probably going to be split between dallas and Fort Worth.....there is a chance it would have gone to Fort Worth alone without dallas, but with dallas in the picture the Denton branch campus never had a chance as for private dollars Fort Worth is horrible at raising private dollars and Fort Worth existed on their own before being forced against their will into the north Texas system to begin with so they were always there competiting for private dollars and as for dallas so far only a million or two has gone to dallas that would have gone to Denton.....there was a Denton branch campus accounting grad that made a donation to the dallas campus a few years back.....that probably would have gone to the Denton branch campus if dallas did not exist but that is about it also these are interesting comments in light of how the bill that has passed both legislative branches and is now waiting on the signature of the governor reads this is how the bill USED to read http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/SB00016H.pdf#navpanes=0 56 million flushed down the toilet for the law school 73.6 million for the "artsy fartsy stuff" as it was called 56 million for part timers in dallas to have "success" and check out books (that is money flushed down the toilet that could have possibly gone to Denton for sure and really so is the law school cash) and then 66.6 million to Fort Worth here is how the bill that has passed and is awaiting the governors signature now reads http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/SB00016E.pdf#navpanes=0 25 million flushed on the law school 48 million for science stuffs in Denton (hey UNT90 you really do have some pull haha) 70 million now flushed away in dallas for a "success" center for part timers and checking out some books and 66.6 million in Fort Worth so the Denton branch campus does get some "tier 1" (NRUF) benefits in the form of science stuff over the artsy fartsy that UNT90 got killed, but the total dollar amount spent on the Denton branch campus took a 25.6 million dollar hit while the dallas campus picked up 14 million and the law school was put back in line as a part timers school in some upper floors of the UCD for the time being instead of trying to piss away 56 million on the old dallas muny building it would be my opinion that the artsy fartsy stuff was too expensive for what the system was in line to get as a whole so it was cut for the less expensive option to free up that BADLY needed cash for the thriving dallas campus.....that or UNT90 just has that much pull really in terms of "tier 1" (NRUF) the research building is a better deal, but it was clear that artsy fartsy was a priority over that until artsy fartsy became too expensive to cover both that project and the needs of the highly successful and rapidly growing (-9 student growth rate over 4 years!) dallas campus or UNT90 pulled the plug on artsy fartsy, but could not find a way to get the remaining 25.6 spent on baseball, firing the BB coach, and lighting a fire under DMac

character issues or not he just does not seem to make very good decisions in life http://milehighsports.com/2012/09/27/mhsm-exclusive-the-story-of-brock-berglund-2/ reading the above story which is him telling his side of things it really just comes off as BS bad decision #1 he switches from CU to KU to "crack the depth chart" he graduates early in Dec so one would think he can concentrate on football then a few months later in April after breaking up with his girl friend a few days earlier he is back in his old town for a "house party" (why don't they call then just parties any more when did they become house parties) and just happens to run into his EX.....and oh yea of course "she was not suppose to be there" and he is "surprised" and it was her that wanted to talk even though she was there with someone else....and yes unfortunately in todays society girls tend to do stupid things, but instead of THINKING "I am a freaking college QB on a Big 12 D1-A team and I graduated early to get away from this high school drama BS" (IF his side of the story is even close to factual and that is a big if) he instead agrees to talk to her so stupid decisions by the boat load already he ends up in a fight with the guy she is there with and he gets hung with a freaking FELONY...so yea either a whole lot of people at the "house party" that his ex and her companion were at did not like BB and told the cops a whole lot of stuff about what he did or his ex and the guy she was with have a whole lot of pull with the cops in that area and the cops in that area can't stand him because I don't see a whole lot of people getting charged with freaking felonies for defending themselves against a 5-8 drunk guy...I mean really this crazy girl that is not suppose to be at the party and her drunken companion that is not suppose to be there just somehow either got everyone at the party on their side or the cops ignored the fact she was all crazy and her companion was all drunk and they were not suppose to be there anyway and hung Brock with the felony charge.....seems Brock is really good at making friends so he spends the next 9 months going back and forth to Colorado 40+ freaking times because he is still hung with a 3rd degree assault that the STATE is going after after their own investigation.....pro tip here.....HIRE A BETTER LAWYER I mean damn.....who needs to go to court that many times for just "shoving a guy" that was not suppose to be at a party that got in your face all drunk when you were just having a "talk talk" with your Ex in the kitchen......either someone that is full of BS or someone that has a lot of people that don't like him....or both so far the whole going to KU vs CU thing to get a starting spot and leaving HS early to get a jump on winning that spot is really not going so well....KU switches coaches.....fat charlie front butt tells him that he will not have a chance to be a starter according to Brock.....which really I think charlie front butt is kind of an idiot, but would it really be surprising to a guy that has spend the last 9 months in online courses, being a distraction to the team, going back and forth to Colorado to deal with his high school legacy crap and overall already showing the new coach that he does not make the best decisions that hey you are not going to get a chance to start until you prove you can even be around for practice and not make an idiot of yourself again at some house party so instead of realizing that he really has something to prove to EVERYONE especially a new coach that has a lot to prove himself after running a program like Notre Dame into the ground and somehow getting another chance Brock decides to transfer...and of course there are two sides because that is what you get when you deal with people that don't make wise decisions....he has said all along "he is a Jayhawk" but of course fat charlie front butt "knew he wanted to transfer" and again I am not a fan of charlie front butt and I think he could easily make vengeful decisions himself, but instead of just letting a guy go that he told was going to be a back up and that he knew wanted to transfer he decided to start dragging him through the mud and refusing the transfer.....again I think that charlie can make stupid decisions, but is that REALLY how you want to get rolling with all that kind of crap and drama....and either way chalk up another case of "Brock making friends" because yea people are just out to get poor Brock then he has to go to court to get released.....manages to win (hey finally making friends) and then when Ole' Miss calls and he is all "happy cited" and then KU sends Ole' Miss an email saying he is two credit hours short and can't transfer......I mean REALLY......you fight a court case for 9 freaking months going back and forth home 40+ times......you take all these online courses and have this great GPA.......you have this team of lawyers ready to get you off of major charges and ready to get you released from a scholarship.....and your too dumb to make sure you have everything in a row to actually be able to transfer.....again this sounds an awful lot like a guy that just needs to get it together and start making better decisions UP FRONT before having to go to the legal team....really already it sounds like a guy that feels he is entitled and has his head in his ass and a bunch of his parents cash to spend to get him out of his stupid decisions so he calls the adviser he had a great relationship with and an hour later she calls back and basically gives him the Heisman right to the face and says she can't deal with him anymore....once again making friends!!...and his own words tells her to shove the phone up her ass.....way to keep it classy there Brock because yea the adviser is really the one that makes the decisions to not deal with you any longer after you freaking SUED the university....sounds like a real level headed guy to me that easily handles adversity...and of course it is all the advisers fault because they are suppose to know that you are being set up to look to transfer so instead of just taking classes while you are flying back home 40+ times to deal with high school drama they are suppose to run your academic life for you and think it all through for you in case you want to transfer.....because that is really the job of an academic adviser to make sure that you as a QB getting a free ride while doing pretty much nothing but bringing drama to the team needs someone to make sure they have all their ducks in a row if they decide to cut and run yet again so then he decides on the community college route....heads to AZ.....they have a lot of QBs competing for the position....and suddenly "something" does not work out and here he is at north Texas and even better is the guy he did not stick around to back up at KU has now left KU and he is going to CU because the guy that managed to make the cut at CU is leaving because he will have to compete for the job and did not want to.....so yea about that decision to not go to CU.... and lastly instead of concentrating on actually playing football he is now dealing again with the NCAA trying to weasel some additional playing time because apparently he thinks that pissing away one season dealing with your high school drama (and eventually taking a red shirt) and then pissing away another year with transfer drama makes him eligible for some type of needed ruling from the NCAA to say how many years he has left really just comes off as a very unstable person that looks to walk in and get something instead of stepping up and earning it and he really needs to get over the whole "my legal team is coming for you thing" and instead step up and actually concentrate on football and perhaps trying to actually beat someone out of a job on the football field instead of beating something in court all of those issues are not specifically tied together, but some people just make their own bad luck based on stupid decisions and based on very short term thinking and Brock seems to be one of those people and he seems to not get people on his side very easily other than those here on GMG that wish miracles from a guy that has only shown instability and poor decision making and lack of ability to look at the long term consequences of a whole series of bad decisions he has made much less step up and take responsibility or share blame for any of them http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7837324/quarterback-brock-berglund-weighs-options-release-university-kansas and the above shows just more double talk.....he is carefully weighing his options and making this big business decision (apparently not too well) he says he is looking at Liberty as the only D1-AA school because of his relationship with Turner Gill.....but in the next paragraph he talks about how he better understands how to choose a program and he won't be wowed by weight rooms or a campus so which is it did you like Coach Gill and that is why you went to KU or were you wowed by the weight room and campus and it was all a mistake.....that you apparently did not learn much from because you were in and out of AZ before you took a snap or a class...so much for that wise business decision.....and that ESPN article further clarifies the "imma git my lawyer!!!" attitude he has....I guess that all did not go so well trying to get out of being enrolled at KU on a technicality....but hey it is only cash on lawyers and time wasted thinking about how to get out from being responsible for any decisions you make huh....better luck next time!

actually you need to keep in mind that UTSA had more wins in D1-A than north Texas did last year UTSA beat Texas State, Idaho, USA, and NMSU north Texas beat FAU, USA and Louisiana and Texas Southern which is the dregs of D1-AA so north Texas beat one terrible team that UTSA also beat (USA) they beat another dreg of D1-A in FAU and they had a "signature" win over Louisiana and then their D1-AA win over one of the worst teams in D1-AA while losing to a bunch of other dregs of D1-A UTSA managed to beat 4 D1-A teams and to beat a D1-A team that beat Houston soundly that then pounded north Texas a few weeks later so with fewer overall chances UTSA still had more overall D1-A wins vs north Texas while both played some of the worst teams in D1-A

Tech has higher admissions than UH, they have a significantly higher graduation rate, they do more total research, they have a PBK chapter that UH has been trying to get for years and they are competitive with UH in all the major rankings and Texas Tech like UH was able to gain access to NRUF funding before the other 6 candidates and will have access to that for at least 4 years before the others and neither Texas Tech or UH are close to being AAU members especially since the AAU is really not looking to add new members and only does so every 5-10 years and UH especially will need to significantly raise their graduation rate to even come close to being considered.....the AAU is about much more than total research and all of the universities you listed are significantly better than north Texas and I see little chance that UH gets into the Big 12 any time soon.....the Houston market is not at risk of being lost to Texas A&M any time soon people don't just stop cheering for UT, Texas Tech, Baylor, or TCU and start cheering for TAMU after one season of placing 3rd in their division of the SEC and winning the Cotton Bowl......TAMU had a long streak of beating UT from 84-94 with only a single loss in that time period and UT responded by hiring Mack Brown and winning a national championship, playing for a second one, and going 3-1 in BCS games while TAMU is 0-1 in BCS games and probably would have played for a MNC in 2012 if they had not run off to the SEC so it is not the first time that TAMU has had some runs of slight success.....they just fail to make the correct decisions to keep them rolling while UT adjust and moves on and as far as SMU in concerned.....north Texas is like an abused woman.....no matter how many times they get beat down they still think that SMU somehow needs them and can't make it without them so they just keep taking more beatings and telling themselves they are what allows the other one to make it because they need them to get by while the other one just keeps crapping on them and even if what SMU is doing overall is still not world beating they have still won 3X as many bowl games in the last 4 years than north Texas has won in their entire history and as for the post just below mine talking about small privates (something north Texas fans seem obsessed with) 8 of the 11 schools in the AAC are public universities and 4 of them are larger than north Texas (UH, Temple, UCF, USF) and Cinci is very close in enrollment at just the main campus as well.......so the AAC is hardly a conference that is filled with the north Texas fans obsession of small privates.....get a clue

this is incorrect in relation to the dollar figures listed on the above link Texas State will not be charging a full $20 until this year so the figures listed do not include a full $20 dollar fee http://www.txstate.edu/news/news_releases/news_archive/2008/02/referendumpasses021308.html the Texas state fee started in 2008 at $10 and goes up $2 per year and does not become the full $20 until 2013 so the 2012 numbers are not with a full $20 dollar fee 2013 for Texas State should see about $1.5 million more from the additional $2 for the final raise of the student fee it will probably show up $750,000 in the 2012-13 year and then an additional $750,000 in the 2013-14 year where it will be totaled out and while UTSA caps their fee at $240 which would be $20 per credit hour for 12 credit hours a full time student is considered 15 hours and most schools cap their fees that are per credit hout at 15 hours so if UTSA was charging a full fee it would be $300 for a 15 hour student and capped there VS being capped at 12 hours no matter if the student takes 15 hours or not http://utsa.edu/today/2007/09/athleticsfee.cfm

just another ridiculous comment based on nothing but jealousy SMU plays Tech at home and TCU, TAMU and UH on the road because they played them at home last year 2012 was @ Baylor and UTEP and TAMU, TCU and UH at home 2011 was @TAMU, TCU and UH with Rice and UTEP at home 2010 was @Tech and Rice with UH and TCU at home in the future 2014 is @ Baylor and north Texas with TCU and TAMU at home and that is just the OOC 2015 Baylor and north Texas at home and TCU on the road SMU has one of the best tailgating experiences in the country with a great venue to host it and very comfortable for the fans and while not world beaters they are 3-1 in bowl games over the last 4 years contrast that with a team that has not had a winning season in 8 years and is 1-5 in bowls all time in their history and that last played in a bowl game in 2004 and last won one in 2002 and contrast that with a team that is looking at a schedule this year with Rice and UTEP at home and UTSA on the road as one of the best and most interesting schedules in a decade and you can see your comment is just BS that is the great thing about GMG.....plenty of advice for UT on how "not to get left behind and become irrelevant"......plenty of advice for SMU and TCU on who they need to schedule and how they can both become relevant to their fans and to college football........plenty of concern for Baylor and Tech being left behind when UT bolts from the Big 12 (even though they will be irrelevant by then because TAMU is placing 3rd in their division in the SEC and playing in a non-BCS game) ......concern for UTSA having fans and attendance no longer showing up when the losing starts (even though they are playing "relevant" teams that "fans care about").....advice for UH, SMU, Tulane and Tulsa and on and on about what conference they should be in and who they should play........but when it comes to north Texas if even 10% of the things that others teams are told they should do is done or if one can even pretend that 10% of what other teams are told they should do is done it is world beater time and the giant is awake and the fans are going to pour in in droves and ALL IS WELL!!!!.....until the end of another 4-8 season then it is BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!!!!! and the EASY answer for attendance at north Texas is to have officer EJ raid the evidence locker and bring a few hundred pounds of da kine to da game and pass out free nickel bags to the student sections and the people sitting in the wing and free dime bags to everyone else in the sideline seats...over 18 of course, but two kids gets you an extra dime

is this a joke? the UT Football program generated $103.8 million in 2011-2012 and TAMU was not even in the top 10 and the #10 program was Nebraska at $55.1 million so TAMU better figure out a way for their program to generate 48 million more if they want to get to where UT is in 2010-2011 total athletics revenues were $150.3 million for UT and 75 million for TAMU so TAMU better figure out a way to bring in 75 million more to get close to UT and ask Tennessee about the big time SEC revenues.....Tennessee has the third largest stadium in the country and they have been in the SEC for decades and even with all those big rivalry games they are just breaking even financially and have a large amount of debt and spend every cent they bring in and they brought in $102 million in 2010-2011 so they are already well ahead of TAMU and have been playing for their larger stadium for years.....hell just a few years back TAMU had their president at the time demanding the athletics department pay back an $18 million dollar loan from the university for "all that TAMU has done in the SEC" at the end of the day the reality is they were still only 11-2, they were 3rd in their division, did not win their division, did not play in the CCG, did not win the conference, and did not play in a BCS game......since 1999 TAMU is 0-1 in BCS games while Texas is 3-1 with a MNC and having played for a second one even in 2010 with a 5-7 record Texas still had a home attendance of 100,654 which was #5 in the country and that is with the OU game in dallas and it is Texas that likes to keep the game there by the way it is OU that would go home and home in a heart beat, but Texas likes the exposure and the revenues over and above the ticket sales.....and by the way TAMU and Arkansas are going to go back to playing in dallas pretty soon as well so there goes one of those "big SEC rivalry games" from Kyle Field as well since 1996 when the Big 12 formed Texas has been ranked 14 times and 7 times in the top 10 and 5 times in the top 5.....TAMU has been ranked 5 times and only one time in the top 10 or top 5 and that was last year @ #5....and the big joke is if they had stayed in the Big 12 they most likely would have been undefeated and played for the MNC and clearly they could beat Alabama because they did in the regular season.....so by making their "century move" they most liely cost themselves a conference championship, a BCS game, and a chance at the MNC and instead they setteled for 3rd in their division and the Cotton Bowl.....so yea that was a "great move" there Aggies....Texas has had 6 seasons when they were 11-2 or better since 1996 while TAMU has had the one (and 11-3 in 1998) and all they have to show for it is a ranking lower than Texas has had twice since 2008 #4/3 and 2009 #2 and a Cotton Bowl.....so yea that was a HUGE season for Texas A&M, but it was an average season for Texas of for a top SEC team and as for the SEC network just like the "big contract lookin" that never materialized for the SEC those numbers are dramatically inflated for the SEC network just like they were for the PAC 12 network as well......cable TV subscribers declined for the first time ever in the USA in 2011 and it is only going to continue to decline as other means of watching programming materialize and as people get tired of paying for crap they don't want to see stuff they only marginally care about the PAC 12 network started in 2012 and here is the Oregon Athletics Department take on their total TV revenues http://www.goducks.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=500&ATCLID=205705405 so in fiscal year 2013 OU expects tot ake in under 20 million for ALL TV revenue, bowl revenue, and NCAA basketball distributions...so witht he "21 million per year" TV contract and the "huge new" PAC 12 network OU expects tot ake in less than 20 million INCLUDING bowl revenues and basketball distributions......because their "21 million per year TV contract" is back loaded and people ignore that and because the PAC 12 network had huge startup cost and has so far not signed on with a large number of cable TV companies or with Dish or Direct TV so the idea of conference networks making huge TV money is dramatically over stated and even if the amounts for the SEC or the PAC 12 ever come close to being what is mentioned Texas will still have a huge lead in total athletics department revenues over TAMU and the vast majority of the SEC and over all of the PAC 12 Texas could have gone to any conference in the country over the last few years so the idae that they are suddenly going to regret not doing so in the next few years because TAMU had a top 10 ranking and made the Cotton Bowl and placed 3rd in their division in the SEC is laughable much less that Texas signed their TV rights away only to turn around and face a huge lawsuit and a potential loss of that lawsuit a few years later because they suddenly changed their mind because TAMU had a single top 10 finish in the last several decades there have been several other periods when TAMU was doing better than Texas and the response by Texas was simply to hire a better coach and watch TAMU fire their mist successful coach ever and replace hime with a succession of other coaches so the idea that Texas is suddenly in panic mode because TAMU did something once that texas has done many times in the recent past is laughable and Texas has all the needed resources to compete with anyone in the country even if the vast majority of teams in the country could double their current TV revenues and Texas can easily add 12,000 or more seats to their stadium in a year or two if they need to and they would have the largest stadium in the country with no one else being close to being in a position to grow larger especially TAMU so before anyone crown TAMU the bestest football program evAR and world dominators how about they mix in a division championship in the SEC, win the SEC and maybe play ina BCS game or even for a MNC which is somethingTexas has done twice in the last decade and even won one and went 3-1 overall in BCS games Texas is not going anywhere and TCU, Baylor and Texas Tech are not going to be left behind even if Texas was to go somewhere in 12 years when the Big 12 TV contract and GOR runs out.....and TAMU is far from guaranteed to be a dominant team in the SEC just like Nebraska learned they are still a ho hum middle of the road non-BCS team playing in the powerful Big 10 with even revenue sharing, a huge money making Big 10 TV network, and out from under the shadows of evil Texas....and now playing games soon against powerhouses like Rutgers and Maryland and Texas is not going to go west they know that is a stupid idea and the PAC sucks anyway and is only going to get worse (which will further hurt their TV network) and the PAC has terrible NCAA distributions especially VS the Big 12 which is not huge revenue, but is still a few million here and there season after season Texas has no problem scheduling big name teams if that is what they desire to do even with 9 conference games and Texas is even less interested in the Big 10 with Rutgers and Maryland added in and just an FYI the CIC does not have money, they have no endowment and they do not give grants or award any money.....they are simply a COOPERATION agreement that makes it easier for the member universities to write grants togather and conduct research together, but the provide ZERO actual dollars and they have no dollars...and Texas already has plenty of abilities to cooperate with any university out there as it is now and they already do on things like the GMT and while the CIC did 9.27 billion in research in 2011 the UT System did 2.1 billion just in that system and with the austin medical school and the south Texas medical schools coming on line that will probably go up about 400 to 500 million over the next decade and the Austin school especially gets rolling....and UT has research cooperation agreements with members of the CIC and the PAC already as well and with TAMU still.....so being a memeber of the CIC might make some things easier, but not being a member does not preven them from cooperating on major research projects with others including members of the CIC you vastly underestimate the ability of the UT Athletics department and the UT Austin leadership to look at, analyze, and understand the various options open to them and what those options REALISTICALLY mean VS all the "news reports" and message board BS says they mean...Texas did not get to where they have 20+ million in revenues over and above the next highest program and 25 million over the highest SEC program because they did not listen to the hypsters and BS artist on GMG or because they missed out on something that TAMU might finally "accomplish" and as the link directly from the Oregon Athletics department states news reports are GROSSLY overestimated about revenues and potential revenues.......understanding that is why UT is where UT is even when they have off years VS where other programs are where they are even when they have their best season in decades once again get a clue you know nothing about UT and it shows in your recent post based on nothing but BS and easily disproven garbage

get a clue....since the 1983 season Texas has played 2 D1-AA teams and that was Sam Houston in 2006 and the score was 56-3.....they also played north Texas that year and the score was 56-7 and before that it was north Texas in 1983 so in 30 seasons Texas has played two D1-AA teams and one of them was north Texas 30 years ago and the other was Sam Houston in 2006 and they also played north Texas that year as well so before you single out a team for playing D1-AA teams try and know what you are talking about....and in that 30 years Texas played north Texas 6 times so once every 5 years

where can I get a hat?

um news flash here.....sitting around blowing smoke up your ass about SMU and what SMU does and does not do or has done and will get done or not done has not worked for the last 5 decades and it won't work for the next 5 decades either you can accuse SMU of making up attendance all you wish, but it is clear as day and a proven fact that north Texas does the same exact thing and it was proven the last game of the first season in Apogee and it was proven many times before that in fouts and it has happened in Apogee since that last game of 2011 as well no one that is of any consequence (and really no one outside this message board) buys your crap about SMU and fewer and fewer even on this message board buy your sleeping giant and they will come of we win crap as well......north Texas could not even fill the stands in the first game at a new stadium against UH (a Texas team that evARyone was wanting to play and be ina conference with because then "the fans would show up").....so pumping green sunshine up your butt while trying to bag on SMU just makes you look silly because bagging on SMU and talking about sleeping giants has not paid off in 5 decades and it will not pay off in the future either....SMU was picked for CUSA back when that mattered and SMU was picked for the BE/AAC and teams walked away (ran away) from the CUSunbelt as fast as they could and even after SMU was a member of the BE/AAC and even after it was clear the BE/AAC was having issues so here is a clue try a new tactic for a change because trying the same old failed one seems to be failing in a major way and try mixing in a winning season and a bowl game every so often as well before you get all sleeping giant and "upside" on anyone especially when talking about a team that is always one step ahead even when they are in the dumps and a dozen steps behind everyone else they wish to be compared to how on earth have Tulsa and UH "hit their upside" especially UH.....they have stronger fan support and always have ina city that has less NCAA competition for fan support, they have a much stronger history (much much stronger) and they have a much stronger recent past as well.....they have already been declared a prefered team for the AAC by the media partners and one of the teams that brought dollars instead of taking them for nothing.....they have a larger athletics budget that will only grow larger with their new stadium fee, they have much better spare sports and a much better spare sport history, they had a better stadium until the last 2 years and they are building a better and larger stadium that they were able to raise mmany more private dollars for and are still working on naming rights as well......so when it came time to put up actual dollars they were miles ahead.....also 99.99% of UH fans are behind the move to the AAC and the .01 that are not are irrelevant as are the stupid thoughts about a team that has done more for decades having a lesser upside than a team that has pretty much never done much of anything....especially when that "upside" is based on being a new conference that is pretty much the same as the old conference Tulsa has had 2 losing seasons out of the last 10 with 3 different head coaches VS having 2 winning seasons in the last 10 with 3 different head coaches and they also have a larger athletics budget....and even in 2001 and 2002 when Tulsa won a single game each season they still averaged 19,508 and 18,985 which is higher than the all time single greatest north Texas attendance evAR (with the faked head count for at least the last game) of 18,864 and in 2001 Fresno State was the biggest name they had at home and in 2002 they had OU at home, but isn't getting the other teams fans to fill the stadium a GMG mantra and part of the "get in a regional conference" chant....you know let everyone else carry the freight (but call out other teams that are actually able to make that happen in reality VS talking about it) so again with two terrible single win seasons in a row in 2001 and 2002 Tulsa still drew more fans at home than the best all time evAR season for attendance with north Texas even with the faked last game attendance count so really the predictions of the demise of Tulsa and UH or of the limits of their upside being reached are laughable in light of the fact that they still draw as well or better even when having horrible seasons and they are still able to attract teams like OU to play there and their fans show up to see "names" like Fresno State while other fans just talk about everyone would show up if we could ever get those teams at home.....or they will show up if we do

damn DJ Plumm Plumm you JUST NOW figured that out :lolu: :lolu: and I liked your website way back when ot first started, but at least you are still using Microsoft Frontpage ....I was sad to see DJ Karen is married and for the record I am saying 3-8 or 4-7 this season with a loss to UTSA or Idaho (one or the other maybe even both)

why on earth would you think the crowd for Idaho would be as large or larger than the crowd for UH in the first game of the new stadium evAR......you really think people are expecting this to be some magical season and they want to make sure they can tell everyone they were there for game one and all the others.....when even a large number of members here on green shunshine pumpers and smoke blowers .info don't think this season will be anything special other than perhaps going 6-6 and getting a bowl invite maybe it is the new marketing campaign (this is your que DJ Plummy )

hippos are always getting busy from the left from the left from the right from the right from the front from the front from the back from the back

you do realize SMU was 7-6 last year with a bowl win and they beat Tulsa and UH which is something north Texas has not done in a long time (since the 60s for Tulsa and the 70s for UH) and that was with GG coming into a new system after not playing for over a year and the team they closed out the season against in a bowl game was 9-3 on the season and 9-4 overall and riding a 5 game winning streak where they had pounded their opponents significantly in all 5 games leading up to losing significantly to SMU in the bowl game if north Texas had a QB do that he would anointed as one of the greatest in north Texas history and sadly those anointing him as that would probably be close to being right about it and he would surely be the greatest in any recent memory when you are reaching back 50+ years to find when the culture was a winning one (and only for a fleeting moment) you are stretching it a bit to say there is not a culture of losing

actually they are like a much younger much prettier version of north Texas Texas State is in their first year od D1-A football, their stadium has already been expanded twice to over 30,000.....they sold it out for the first game.....they beat UH on the road for their first game at the D1-A level......they hired a name coach to start out.....they passed a student fee before any of that....they moved into a conference that is pretty much on the same level as the conference that north Texas worked nearly a decade to get into.....their average attendance was actually greater last year compared to north Texas and they had 6 home games VS 5.........they recruited better http://247sports.com/Season/2013-Football/TeamRankings http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2013 http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/teamrank/2013/all/all;_ylt=Arxwujfd.JTyAPKcsPF4JndGPZB4 they had the exact same record 4-8 with the exact same level of competition and a win over a common opponent VS a loss to that opponent and they did all of that in their first year in D1-A not their 18th so the reality is they are making the moves right at the start of entering D1-A that north Texas waited a decade or more to try and make they have hired a name basketball coach now with head coaching experience in the same state where he has strong ties.....they already have a baseball program and their athletics budget is just a few hundred dollars less and they still have a few more years of automatic 2 dollar increases to that student fee while north Texas has already not raised the fee the allowed 10% for one year and will probably not raise it again the next opportunity as well so they are about 17 years ahead of the game as far as where they are VS north Texas as for academics they successfully navigated a name change back in 2003 that has helped them greatly in recognition.....both are now emerging research universities.....endowments are pretty much identical.....their 4,5 and 6 year graduation rates are higher as is 6 years with persistance and they have a higher 1 and 2 year freshman retention rate in the "critical" STEM fields they graduated 1 more CS major and 19 more engineering majors while north Texas graduated 22 more math majors and 19 more physical science majors and in nursing it was 82-0 Texas State in passing the teacher certification exam in 2009 Texas State was 99% north Texas 98% in 2010 both were 97% and in 2011 it was 100% Texas State and north Texas 96% in 2011 and 2012 they had significantly more research expenditures per full time faculty equivalent and in both years higher research expenditures overall and their 2015 "closing the gaps" target for research expenditures is $37,500 and they are at 97.8% of that while for north Texas it is $30,330 and north Texas is at 98.6% of that....so north texas is closer tot heir target goal, but the THECB has a much higher 2015 goal for TxState VS Denton "research university" and that is with TxState offering 10-12 total PhD programs while research university offers 35 TxState has a lower average class size and a lower median class size and they have a larger % of classes under students and a lower % of classes over 50 students and that is with a lower average tuition and fees AUTOMATIC admission requirements are pretty much identical http://www.admissions.txstate.edu/future/freshman/getting-accepted.html http://apply.unt.edu/admissions and Texas state has more dorm rooms on campus for fewer students which means they have a larger % of students living on campus http://www.uh.edu/president/communications/university-community/fall-address-highlights/ so overall TxState and north Texas admit pretty much the exact same type of students and Texas State does a better job retaining them and graduationg them and helping them pass Teachers exams and even though they have just started to focus on research and offering a larger number of PhD programs they are doing more total research per faculty member, more total research overall and more restricted (competitively awarded) research and they have done a MUCH better job of obtaining accrediation for their new engineering programs and making sure that NO graduates of those programs were left with a degree that came from a program that was not properly accrediated (which makes it harder to obtain employment in engineering and means it takes you much longer to qualify to take the EIT and to become a PE) while north Texas has had at least one and possibly more mechanical engineering graduating classes graduate and not be included in a retroactive accrediation because north Texas did not do the things needed to obtain that ABET accrediation in a timely fashion and they are STILL working on it which means more graduates could be in danger of having the value of their degree lessoned so while it is fun to pretend that a university is "shadowing" another or to pretend they are doing the same things (while ignoring that they are doing those things 17 years sooner) and it is fun to pretend that they are still Southwest Texas party school the reality is that comes at the detriment of understanding where north Texas is and it is all the worse when you don't even realize how similar (or how far ahead) the school you are trying to put down or ignore has become

incorrect http://untsystem.edu/regents/agendas/12-8-16/14%20-%20UNTS%20Consideratin%20of%20the%20Consolidated%20FY%2013%20Budget.pdf north Texas Athletics 2010 15,941,695.....2011 17,227,167........2012 (proposed) 25,044,264 (actual) 19,502,713 + 3,500,000....2013 proposed 25,602,682 TxState http://www.fss.txstate.edu/budget/budgetnumbers/operbudget.html 2010 estimated 14,181,321.......2011 18,340,109.....2012 21,320,297........2013 proposed 25,369,750 talk about outright theft haha....that is something probably 10 total students from Denton even know exist much less have set foot in.....that is why Dr. B was fired basically the legislature has nothing to do with it other than the change for the fee to go away upon payback of any bonds for athletics construction projects each school votes how they want it to go...TxState voted in a $10 dollar fee with two dollar increases to $20 total UH voted in a straight $45 dollar fee UTSA voted in raising their cap in the athletics fee based on credit hours from $120 to $240 Stephen F. Austin voted in reducing their student services fee by $3 dollars and then adding a straight athletics fee of $9 dollars each long semester or $18 total it was the administration at north Texas that proposed reducing the student services fee by $3 and then adding $10 for athletics with a cap at 15 hours with no increase and a 10% increase is allowed each year without a vote of the students and only BOR approval and the BOR has declined to raise it any at all so far.....totally on the administration and BOR of north Texas again incorrect....each school has the restrictions they put in place when it was voted upon....TxState voted to raise it $2 per year.....UH and UTSA voted on straight total dollar amounts (though UTSA it tied to credit hours, but a max of $240 no matter how many credit hours) http://utsa.edu/today/2007/09/athleticsfee.cfm http://www.chron.com/sports/cougars/article/UH-students-vote-for-fee-increase-to-help-2959592.php http://www.txstate.edu/news/news_releases/news_archive/2008/02/referendumpasses021308.html they were under budget in 2012 as shown in the very first link and appearently people do in fact care about TxState haha

because money does not grow on trees unless it is being wasted in dallas on failed economic developments and eminent domain is not something that can just be used whenever some entity with the ability to use it wishes to use it....there has to be a PROVEN need and right now north Texas has plenty of land and space to build upon and it is doubtful they could prove need if they were to try plus the Sack N Save property alone is on the tax rolls for $2,155,000 and I doubt it could be bought for that even with eminent domain since there would need to be provisions made for taking away the profitibility of the owners of that property both the real property owner and Sack N Save so you are probably looking at 4 or 5 million alone for just that property and when you add in the strip center, exxon, IHOP, and on and on and you add in that each of those businesses is having the ability to profit from an investment taken away from them you are looking at a very large investment of cash just to get the properties then you have to scrape them clean as well Sack N Save, McDonalds, Exxon, Raise The Flag, IHOP, Dollar General and on and on are all making money from that property as are the property owners and the use of eminent domain that would strip them of the ability to continue to do so would be an expensive legal fight and a settlement well over the taxable value of all those properties which is about 4 million+ and I seriously doubt The City of Denton is looking to take ownership of those properties since doing so would remove the ability to collect property taxes from them....if Denton was going to lose the right to collect taxes on those properties it would be much smarter to just let north Texas pay that cost and Denton would just lose tax revenue instead of spending tax money to lose tax revenue also The City of Denton getting involved would just make it much more likely that an eminent domain case would lose in court since "beautification" projects in Texas are not considered public interest projects and may actually not qualify for the use of eminent domain at all....north Texas could try and make a case, but at this point since no lack of space is shown on a 20 year plan that was just released for the university detailing the locations of future projects I doubt that would be a winning case in court especially in Texas and when a university is having to spend 3.5 million on T-shacks to house two long established programs of study and they are going to place those T-shacks at the highly visible location of Chestnut and Welch I doubt there is money available so buy 6-8 million worth of real estate (maybe more depending on profitibility of the various businesses on those properties) and then pay to scrape them clean as well especially when there is no long term planned use for them

just a few things here....I am not sure where you are hearing about a large increase in the state funding because this press release from north Texas says the exact opposite http://inhouse.unt.edu/report-83rd-texas-legislatures-regular-session it does say that The State of Texas expects to spend more on higher ed, but that is state wide not for Denton also in the north Texas LAR they have gone with a zero increase budget from 2013 as well as represented on page 110 http://www.unt.edu/ereports/pdffiles/UNTLAR2015.pdf and a zero increase in state appropriations from 2013 means that the appropriations would be less than 2012 by about 1.6 million The State of Texas funds ZERO for the construction of dorms....NOTHING.....100% of dorm construction and upkeep is funded from housing revenues and nothing is funded from The State of Texas for dorms The THECB does not talk about making any university a particular destination they set enrollment increase goals based on the "Closing The Gaps" plan that is in place and the THECB goal for north Texas is is 40,087 students by 2015 and north Texas is currently at 89.3% of that goal and as clearly pointed out in the master plan documents (linked below) north Texas is not expected to be at 45,000 students until at least 2020...and the interesting thing is if you actually pay attention to the graph it shows that even the north Texas FPC line only reaches 40,323 students by 2020 even though the notation says the "45,000 goal has been re-affirmed" while the THECB line reaches 41,345 even though it is BELOW the north Texas FPC line....so clearly whoever made that actual graph had their head up their ass and was just blowing smoke http://untsystem.edu/untmasterplan/documents/WEB-130206_UNT_MP_WKSHP_5.pdf most likely north Texas plans on having (some students) 41,345 students by 2020 even though they have "re-affirmed" the goal of 45,000 students and the THECB plans on north Texas having 40,323 students and the person making the graph either just got back from a weed break or needed to go take a weed break before completing that graph and placing it in a "master plan".....but hey you get what you pay for....anyone have the number for Sasaki?.....in the very first presentation from may 30 2012 it had The University of Texas San Marcos listed as one of the universities they had planned a building for.....that should have been a hint to call Sasaki right then haha I have seen nothing that says the new hotel or convention center will house the HRM program and the only involvement for north Texas I have ever seen is renting the land for $100,000 per year......it would not be wise planning to have in your "master plan" or budget to place a program in a privately funded building that has not even be confirmed that it will even be built yet....and since part of the hold up is the fact that Denton wants the private developer of the hotel to cover $500,000 to $800,000 per year in bonds for the convention center portion I see it as doubtful that same developer is looking to have significant space dedicated to classes....I am sure they will wirk with the HRM program on some things, but not house them.....and also on the linked plan above in the 10-15 year section CMHT expansion is one of the possible projects so I doubt a private developer is going to allocate space in a hotel for something that will only be there less than 10 or so years and lastly for the sports facilities...bond money does not just hang around....it is not possible and probably illegal and surely an issue with the bond covenants to use facility bond money for purposes it was not allocated for.....that would almost surely be a legal/criminal issue with the state and the bond holders would have something to say as well most likely in court....sometimes cities and other government entities (especially crappy run ones like dallas) will have "leftover bond money" that they fritter away on other useless crap, but that is not how university construction projects work because of the differences in how things are funded.....cities are not backed by the state and their bonds are not backed by the state.....when a university funds a construction project they issue "commencial paper" which is very short term debt (less than a year) and often if the project is a long term project they do not issue paper for the entire amount at one time and as the project progresses progress payments are made to the various contractors and then upon completion of the project and acceptance of the final work and upon final payment and varification of the release of all sub-contractors leans ect. the university issues long term bonds in the exact amount of that project and pays off the commercial paper and the project goes into long term bond debt.....one of the reasons this is done (amongst many) is so that universities won't go around over estimating project after project and then ending up with a million here and a million there that they can then use to build sports facilities and other facilities that are not allowed legally to be state supported while using bond money that is being covered by the state http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Appropriations_Bills/83/Decision_Docs/825_Overview%20of%20Tuition%20Revenue%20Bonds.pdf as you can see on the above link dorms are specifcically not allowed to be built with tuition and revenue bonds.....tuition revenue bonds are bonds covered actually by ALL revenues of a university SYSTEM, but generally paid with tuition, fees, AND some state funding as you can see in the above link as well (sometimes line items (not often) and mostly in general appropriations (formula funding))......so if a university did mix in a project with some existing bonds because they happened to have 8 million or so left over from an approved project they would be making a huge mistake because they would be making it not possible to ever have the debt service of those bonds covered with a line item or even with formual funding (general appropriations)...dorms have to be bonded with bonds backed by the housing revenue stream.....sports facilities can be backed with tuition revenue bonds, but if a university was to mix a sports facility in with bonds for some project that is approved for tuition revenue bonds (and eligible for state support) they would be forgoing the opportunity to have any of the debt service on those bonds supported by a line item or even general appropriations....so they would be making a huge financial mistake also you will see the only projects up for tuition revenue bonds for 2014-15 for north Texas in Denton are a COVA bulding and a research building addition and that is also what is so far in the existing bills before the senate higher ed committee and the "system" project has no bill for that project so barring any last minute emergency bills being filed (if that is still possible at this date) those are the two major projects that have a chance for approval for 2014-15

lets be realistic and honest here what you are asking for does not come from "the offices on bonnie brae" it SHOULD come from the offices on Ave. E lets look at the programs that others concern themselves with passing north Texas by and make masterful multi-font multi-color post about on a regular basis TxState and UTSA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Trauth Denise Trauth President of TxState for soon to be 11 years....what is one of the major accomplishments listed...."The Drive" for athletics.....really that is a poor overall representation of her accomplishments since she was the one that pushed for the name change, got it approved quickly, and managed to not alienate the alumni....the Round Rock campus is listed, the engineering programs are not, becoming an emerging research university is not, the McCoy donation to the college of business is not listed along with several others, and the successful fundraising campaign is not listed and here is the citation from Wiki http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4116-look-out-fbs-here-come-the-bobcats-and-the-runners again wiki and bleacher report are both questionable sources at best for most things that need to be factual, but she was the one leading the charge.....she got the students excited for the move up and the fee increase, she put the right people in charge of raising money for the stadium, and she lead "The Drive" to get it done....the AD was in charge of the day to day things involved in getting it done and in gathering information for conference affiliation and needs, but SHE approved it and SHE demanded it happened and SHE made sure the resources of the university were fully available to make it so and here is all you really NEED to see to know all of the above is a FACT http://www.president.txstate.edu/questions/faq.html What is your philosophy about the academics/athletics relationship? Athletics is often a window for the institution, a window into the academic side of the house. It’s unlike any other window. Athletics can give you opportunities, such as fundraising, that nothing else gives you. Of course, there can never be an assumption that athletics is somehow the core of the institution. You can have the academy without athletics, but you can’t have athletics without the academy. A great partnership can exist, but it takes a desire for the partnership, which I think Texas State has. Like all partnerships, though, you can’t take it for granted and you never stop working on it. People on the academics side have to believe that somehow athletics is supporting them. I also think that on a residential campus like Texas State, athletics is an important part of student life. Students, even very good students, must be connected to an institution to succeed, and athletics is a powerful connector. What are your thoughts on FBS football (formerly Division I-A football)? In fall 2007, after a rigorous planning process, the Athletics Strategic Planning Committee recommended that Texas State declare its intention to move to FBS football competition after a current four-year NCAA moratorium is lifted. The committee also identified benchmarks we could use for measuring our progress toward that goal. President’s Cabinet endorsed this recommendation. Subsequently, the student body overwhelmingly approved a referendum authorizing a proposed increase in the Athletics Fee to be phased in over the next several years, one of the identified benchmarks. In February 2008, our Board of Regents approved this phased fee increase and accepted a $1 million gift to the athletics program, the program's largest gift ever. At their May 2008 meeting, our Board of Regents authorized Texas State to take such actions as may be necessary and lawful to become classified as an NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) university, subject to final approval by the Chancellor. The Department of Athletics has developed a marketing campaign known as The Drive for the move to FBS football competition. The Drive focuses on ticket sales increases, attendance increases, and facilities improvements, among other things. This is a four- to five-year process with a projected move date of 2012. The Department of Athletics has provided responses to some of the most frequently asked questions about The Drive. again directly from the president of the university in a question and answer session....RV does not have the power or the authority or the ability to speak to the academic side of the university to sell athletics as something that creates loyalty and student and alumni involvement to the academic side of the university...those types of things come from the academic side of the university PERIOD....RV can make all the plans he wishes, but if those plans are not supported or apporved by the UNIVERSITY President and then pushed to the BOR and the idiot in dallas then it is nothing more than an exercise in futility and a waste of resources and time and effort and worse if they are released publically it is a disaster if not supported by the university.....like being allowed to step up and say he was looking to raise 90 million dollars for athletics right when he was first hired.....for a university that at the time had less than a 90 million dollar endowment and had never raised more than a few million per year in the history of the university.....but al "the fool" hurley let him step right up to the microphone and say that and then promptly killed that idea and it has haunted RV ever since then.....what kind of person would step out again like that with a 5 year plan when they know the academic side can't plan past next week much less next year and will change their minds or not support something that is public at the drop of a hat now lets look at UTSA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Romo became president of UTSA in 1999....the 5th president of a university that has been open since 1969....he has been there 14 years notice this part of that WIKI The UTSA Plan: A Roadmap to Excellence what does it say at 42 seconds into that video?....what did it show at 50 seconds? http://utsa.edu/today/2004/07/30.cfm Specifics of the university's "Roadmap to Excellence" initiative include: Student life initiatives including projects that enhance the campus environment, athletic programs and student services -- all designed to contribute to the retention and success of UTSA students. again it might be last on the list, but the point is it is a UNIVERSITY goal not an "athletics" goal or an athletics dream that hits a brick wall at the president and higher level.....it is COMING FROM the president and higher level the 120 million dollar capital campaign http://weareutsa.com/facultystaff/ what does it show for a photo with "enriching experiences"....why a football player...again a UNIVERSITY WIDE fund raising effort that INCLUDES athletics not the athletics department just acting on their own....do you see the name of the UTSA AD anywhere in any of that information.....did you see the name of the TxState AD in any of their plans....NO...yes the athletics departments of each of those institutions developed a plan....at the behest of the UNIVERSITY administration https://www.utsa.edu/impact/doc/ImpactUTSA.pdf again athletics mentioned specifically in "what UTSA means to the community".....from the UNIVERSITY level even in the strategic research plan they mention athletics once https://www.utsa.edu/about/pdfLibrary/pdf/2016StrategicPlan.pdf now lets contrast that with what is going on in lil' ole' Denton http://vpaa.unt.edu/files/StrategicPlan0813/StrategicPlan0813.pdf above is an old university strategic plan that was set to expire this year that fell by the wayside some time back...it mentions athletics in passing a few times and that is about it here is the one that took it's place in 2011 (only 3 years into the old one and 2 years before it was set to expire) http://research.unt.edu/sites/default/files/UNT%20Strategic%20Plan%20for%20Research%20May%2024%202010.pdf it mentions athletics not at all... and now here is the new 4 bold goals and everyones favorite tag line A Green Light To Greatness!! http://research.unt.edu/strategic-plans you will again notice the links to the 2008-13 strategic plan, the 2010-20 plan and the summaries (and the summaries do not mention athletics a single time, the 2010-20 plan never mentions athletics, and as pointed out the former plan mentions it only in passing)....what about the 4 bold goals!! http://www.unt.edu/features/four-bold-goals/ Athletics is mentioned a single time under "vision" where north Texas will be "celebrated" for it's athletics....that is it that is all that athletics is mentioned and strangely those "four bold goals" are also called a strategic plan for 2012-2017.....so at the curent time north Texas has 3 strategic plans going....one for 2008-2013, one for 2010-2020, and one for 2012-17.....and even more strangely they are all three actually listed and linked together on one giant clusterfuck of a web page filled with crap and taglines...and most relevant to this discussion all three of them either ignore athletics entirely or mention it in passing with no real goals or quantifiable measures other than "athletics exist at north Texas and we haz some" and of course no capital campaign....that ship seems to have sailed....although there are whispers of something happening in the next couple of months (after the whispers of something happening last September) and of course people have been hired for big paying positions http://inhouse.unt.edu/capital-campaign-fundraising-official-joins-advancement or in the case of north Texas just bumped on up the food chain because they took the job on a temp basis and managed to keep breathing http://news.unt.edu/news-releases/michael-monticino-lead-fundraising-efforts-serve-vp-advancement and of course some were hired and then walked away without even staying for the shortest amount of time they had promised http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20120407-unt-leader-disappointed-vice-chancellor-bill-lively-leaving-for-national-geographic.ece http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2012/04/07/bill-lively-leaving-unt-for-job-with-national-geographic-society-in-washington-d-c/ something came up...brah! and yea imagine that ole' lee the buffoon getting the short end of something.....damn that is about a daily occurrence.....and then there is what Denton gets....the broken off end and just for kicks there is the "leadership" at north Texas....al leaves in 2000 to become "chancellor".....replaced by Dr. Pohl who lasted about 6 years, but really could not accomplish much because he had al as the chancellor and Dr. Pohl was viewed as just another move up from the previous 20 years of riding the pine as a university....then there was Dr. B who lasted about 4 years and got crosswise with a moron and was fired....and now the retired guy that was moved up from a temp position to become the full president that has lasted all of about 3.5 years including the remaining riding the pine time until someone else is picked (or moved up...maybe the nice DCCCD fundraiser lady wants the job) and also including his "temp time" while that nation wide search that looked under every nook and cranny to find a retired guy that would fill in for a few years until the search starts again so in the same tie period that UTSA has had one president, TxState has had 2 (with most of that time being Dr. Trauth) north Texas will be going on their 4th president not including al the dolt...and there are currently 3 strategic plans in place....only one that has any real substance to it (2010-2020) that took the place of one that at least had a little substance to it, but that looks to have been replaced by one that is a tag line, cold hotdogs, swag bags, and 5th grade marketing class CRAP.....and there is only the most brief mention of athletics in any of them and not at all in the one with the most substance and only a single time in the one that is now the latest and "green light to greatness".....and yea there is suppose to maybe perhaps be an announcement about a major fund raiser when the 3 year retired guy that was acting as president just announced he is retiring so #4 can move in....and hopefully fix the hotdog warmer and come up with a new tagline and some swag bags so compare and contrast those three different universities and tell me why anyone with an ounce of common sense or a functioning brain would expect that the AD at one of them would even consider making a 5 year plan much less makign that plan public with any type of firm goals in place.....because retired guy #4 might come right in and fix the hotdog cart, warm up the popcorn machine, fill the swag bags with stress balls and come up with yet another whole new plan.....or he might come in, ride the pine for a few years and GTFO for someone else....or hell he might realize he has a total dumbass for a boss in dallas and call him on that and get fired... again you REALLY think the problem is on bonnie brea?....REALLY?

you do realize that north Texas and SMU are both classified the same by the Carnegie Foundation as RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity)....or well you probably don't because you don't have a clue what you are talking about and in 2011 SMU did 24.5 million in total research while north Texas did 25.4 north Texas "accomplished" that with 598 tenured faculty (including 10 instructors and lecturers) and 221 tenure track faculty (with 0 instructors or lecturers) and 255 non-tenure track faculty (with 0 instructors or lecturers) <<< all from the north Texas website.....according to the THECB it is 825 tenured or tenure track faculty, 798 non-tenure track (other), 2 lecturers, and 968 teaching assistants SMU with 495 tenure track faculty, 41 non-tenure track and 169 lecturers so on a per faculty member basis SMU faculty are much more productive than north Texas faculty even just limiting it to tenure track faculty and dramatically more productive if non-tenure track and the like are included so before you go accusing anyone of not being a "research university" you should make sure the metrics for north Texas and the classifications for north Texas are not pretty much the exact same as the university you are saying is not a research university......because the Carnegie Foundation has them in the exact same classification as north Texas and the total research figures are pretty much identical with one university having a much smaller total faculty count and a smaller enrollment way to mock north Texas in an attempt to mock SMU because if SMU is "almost a research university" then north Texas is exactly the same