[Official Hawkeye 2015 UNT Game announced]

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

[New Houston Cougar Stadium]

As far as law and engineering, yes, it would have been nice to get our College of Engineering off the ground sooner, especially with our TAMS students winning national awards but having to go elsewhere to pursue their degrees until recently. Same goes for law...the "waste" that is our law school can at least give us hope of retaining our Phi Alpha Delta scholars and nationally ranked Moot Court teams that, year after year, beat the hell out of just about everybody else and scatter to law schools all over the country. Some of them even go to UH, so you see, your lawyers that boost your statistics in median income and such...quite a few of them started their reputations at UNT, and you can thank poor timing for the fact that we didn't have a law school years ago so that UH could pull in a bunch of our brightest legal minds that wanted to stay in Texas.

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"

[New Houston Cougar Stadium]

No, it's not. Look at photo #6: http://blog.chron.com/cougars/2012/12/uh-unveils-renderings-for-new-on-campus-football-stadium/#8995-6

It will be an excellent venue, no doubt. But it will be what is commonly called an "erector-set stadium."

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

[UH to leave the AAC?]

Based on what he's written in the past, he's a real proponent of Dr. Battaille and hates Lee Jackson with a passion.

Dr. Battaille no longer works for UNT: This person all-of-a-sudden has problems with UNT.

There must be some dots in there somewhere.

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

[UH to leave the AAC?]

"Either way the Big 12 will look at folks like Boise State before they look at a power house 5-7 Conference USA team such as Houston". - Diamond Eagle

I believe 1 of the 5 wins was against UNT. I don't know why you would talk trash if UNT's record was I believe 4-8 in the Sun Belt.

no major conference is going to take Boise period and especially not the Big 12......just will not happen

Typical AddRan fans forgetting that there was one other state school which didn't get into the SWC - UTEP and forgetting the reason UNT, Houston and UTEP were kept outta the SWC - integration. Still It is true that UNT doesn't have much of anything to say about anyone else's football program - right now.

Now as to why TCU is not playing UNT right now - 1) there's no history between the schools, 2) UNT wants a home & home, and 3) it does little to help TCU - unlike other schools in the area, TCU doesn't have attendance problems or scheduling problems which UNT can fill.

Interesting fact - Normal & AddRan were playing each other before SMU ever existed.

We can talk smack because we're not dumb enough to think that a 5-7 record in any non-AQ conference makes us eligible for the XII.

SMU made a good move in moving the the AAC, but Houston is really getting screwed. It's ended up with the same lot of private schools it griped about taking from the WAC in 2005, which have very limited upsides.

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

[UNT and local universities in line for big improvements]

I can't believe we are spending 70 some odd million of MY TAX DOLLARS on some artsy-fartsy building when that money could be MUCH better put to use in buying out Benford's contract, expanding Apogee, or fixing the lighting in the Superpit!!!!

I am outraged!!!

<sarcasm>

Somehow I feel our UNT-Denton main campus endowment coffers (of which we need about 4 x's as much as we presently have to become Tier 1) would be so much larger if we were not so spread out in DFW. Might the other system schools in Texas just traditionally have more financial resources to draw from as they have most of the last 50-75 years?

UNT-Denton was struggling financially even as a single university not that far removed from our teacher's college era before the idea of becoming the flagship campus for a DFW Metroplex system even came up.

UNT being a system of schools in Dallas, Fort Worth and Denton is fine but to what sacrifice has all this been for UNT-Denton and its quest for Tier 1?

GMG!

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

[North Texas 2013 Preview -- USA Today]

You will not win either game with a QB who has not played in a real game in 3 years, and even that was at a preppy HS in CO, a state not known for the best in HS football. BB could be a factor in 2014, but 2013 should be a year to learn (that is if he stays around, as he seems prone to move from place to place often; also may have some character issues since previuosly charged w/ assault but acquitted---where there is smoke there is usually some fire). I'll take a three year starter and two year captain over the huge gamble that BB would be in 2013.

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!

[College football countdown | No. 119: Texas at San Antonio]

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

[UH to leave the AAC?]

10Eagle10, on 15 May 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

FIFY...kind of

texas tech is more than a decade away, if they're even that close...Not necessarily the company you should want to be keeping. Also added in Rice, since you omitted them. It's comical that you think the Big 12 is worried about the academic side when they recently added West Virginia and TCU to the already academic powers of Baylor, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State

Rutgers does not secure the NYC market. Not even a blip.

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&amp;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

[2012 NCAA Total Revenue by Athletic Department]

The answer is very easy to understand, PMG. Both Texas State and UTSA have the full athletic fee per semester hour that is being charged ($20) to their students and it not set to ever end. Here, at UNT, we have a $10/hr athletics fee that can go higher if the leaders wanted it to, but they are content at the level it is at so that it keeps tuition at a level that equates to being a "value".

Also, those two schools never told their alumni and fans that FBS football doesn't matter that much, like we did for over 12 years. Not only did you lose a few generations of fans by doing this, the alumni who you lost back then are at points in their lives where they can give more back to the university, since they are in their 40s and 50s now. Instead, the large classed of graduates from 1982-1994 basically placed their fandom--and money--with the pro teams in the area or with other schools that are cool to be associated with. Neither Texas State, nor UTSA, have to deal with any of these issues. Their athletic coffers, particularly on the revenue side, show that an emphasis on sports is already helping their programs to move upward. Will it continue that way? Who knows. But the fact remains that their leaders want to build up their football programs and they are unapologetically chargin the full student fee for athletics to get it promoted faster.

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

[What will it take to raise attendance]

If you can be competitive, treat your fans well, and play teams that are of interest to your base, you have a fighting chance of some attendance success. Sorry, but SMU has violated at least two of the three forementioned basics.

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

[A&M just another school spending whatever it can on stadium]

In my opinion, Texas is in big trouble here. When the SEC Network gets going, the payout to A&M is going to be more than Texas gets from the Big XII and LHN. The Aggies get games against the SEC powerhouses in College Station. Texas' biggest opponent is played in Dallas every year. They play home games against teams that aren't nearly as attractive as who the Aggies play now. And once Baylor issues their first bonds for their new stadium, they are going to be welded to Texas. And as we have seen, Baylor produces some very good lawyers who are glad to sue the world to protect their school's interest of being a tick on the hound. To some degree, TCU and Tech fall in those categories, too.

To me, the only out Texas has is to go independent for about 2-3years. Basically, they are going to have to take a step back to move forward. They'll still get sued, but they can say that they are leaving Baylor, TCU, and Tech in an AQ league and will still play them, so they can be allowed to move on. Then, they have to figure out how to rework or ditch the LHN, just so they can fit in with another conference. The SEC won't ever take them, since A&M, Arkansas, and Mizzou will never vote for them, nor will LSU, Florida, Kentucky, or South Carolina, who all want to protect their states from getting a second SEC school. The PAC could be a good option, but you're basically giving A&M the advantage of location and time zone for recruiting purposes. Kids in Texas want their families to see them play, even if its on TV. An A&M game at South Carolina will start at 6pm CST, at the latest. A game in the Pac for anyone in this time zone may not start until 9:30. So, to me, the only play Texas can make that would compete well with the Aggies move to the SEC is to look out for themselves by going independent for a short time, which would get rid of Baylor, TCU, and Tech, rework or ditch the LHN, and then join the other major prestigious league that involves the CST--the B1G. Make no mistake about it, the B1G would take Texas in a heartbeat with its AAU status, research capabilities, and huge TV market. Plus, the B1G will only take AAU schools and it won't take schools with poor academic standards in their eyes (i.e., the emails to Texas a few years ago from the Big Ten offices referring to the "Tech problem"). Texas would get games against marquee opponents and they can get into the CIC money that the B1G schools use to fund their research projects. To me, that's the only route I see to allow Texas to get back ahead of where A&M is headed, from all fronts--revenue, conference prestige, and premier scheduling to sell your fans on.

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

[B10 Finalizes Non FCS Policy]

Exactly--the "weak" FCS isn't exactly that far behind the low end of FBS. Sam Houston, North Dakota State, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, and others aren't terribly far from any SBC, MAC, or CUSA team right now. But that doesn't make it fair for an AQ team with 88 scholarships to playa team with 65 or wahtever number the FCS schools are allowed. Those money games should, at the very least, be against teams with similar scholarship levels. IOW, Texas should play North Texas or Texas State, not Sam Houston State or SFA.

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

[Missed You At The Mean Green Quarterly Meeting This Morning.]

where can I get a hat?

[New C-USA versus AAC: A USM Fan' s Comparison]

When seven thousand or so fans are showing up for most of your home football games, which is the case with SMU, whatever conference you are in seems basically irrelevant. Highland Park High School draws as many fans when they play at Ford as SMU does for many of its games and it is unlikely that most of the AAC teams that come to Dallas will improve those rather bleak attendance figures.

Of course, our attendance figures are not that great for the size of our school and alumni base, but winning can change that. We just have to win games regardless of conference affiliation.

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

I don't think USM would leave. There's no benefit besides schools they were with before. USM has a chance to be with schools with higher upside instead of schools like Tulsa and UH that have hit their ceiling.

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

[UNT announces new capital campaign]

question, that amount would go to the university's endowment????

the short answer is no.....the vast majority of the money has already been raised.....85% of it if you look at the website so $170 million out of $200 million has been raised already in the "silent recruiting" phase

the website and information totally and completely sucks and is void of useful information for the most part, but if you read it all you can get SOME info

on the blurb about the person in charge of the campaign it says he has been leading the effort since it started in 2007 and if you read the part about some of the donations that have been made it mentions the PACCAR donation and that was made in late 2006

also if you add up all of the annual giving to north Texas since fiscal year 2006-2007 it adds up to just over $170 million

so the campaign "started" in September of 2006 and had a silent recruiting phase of 6 years and 8 months that has raised 85% of the $200 million so there is $30 million left to go

the "banner year" was 2011 when Charn Uswachoke gave 22 million, the Voertmans gave 8 million and the appogee deal was signed for 20 years with about $15 million in cash spread over the 20 years of the deal and $5 million in "in kind" services to the university.....so 2011 had a 50 million dollar year.....the next best year was 2007 with 23 million (or 28 million in gifts pledges and estate distributions) and then on average about 15 to 16 million the rest of the years

pledges are not up front cash they are donations of estates to be turned over when someone passes or a life insurance settlement that will be turned over when someone passes so they are counted the year they are pledged, but will not happen until years down the road and for how much in actual dollars who knows they are valued at the value when they are made

if you add up the actual money taken in from fiscal year 2006-2007 until 2011-2012 it is just over $170 million and then of course the bio of the leader and the PACCAR gift mention so the "stealth recruiting" portion has been going on 6 years and 8 months and more than likely the public phase will be the remainder of the 2012-2013 fiscal year (until August 31st) and then fiscal year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 so the campaign will end August 31st 2015 since that would be two more years of public fundraising and on average north Texas brings in about 15 million per year so that would probably just go over the $200 million goal by maybe 5% barring any major donations between now and then

so the reality is "the campaign" is pretty much winding down and any hope for major increases in the endowment are probably just wishful thinking and only 2 years and 4 months of a 9 year campaign will be "public" and the rest was "stealth recruiting"

of course there really is no time line given and really not much of anything of substance at all on the press release or the website, but if you read it over, see the "2007 start date" when the leader got to work, you see the mention of the 2006 PACCAR donation and you add up the financial statements from north Texas you can see that fiscal year 2006-2007 is when they decided on a "start date" because it matches with the vague info on the website and the amounts for those years all added up match with the "85% raised" ($170 million raised so far) of $200 million and then if you look you can see an average year for north Texas is $15 million per year in donations and of course you want to "beat" your "goals" so that gives north Texas the remainder of this fiscal year (until August 31st) and then 2 more fiscal years (to August 31st 2015) to just raise an average amount of donations and perhaps "beat" the $200 million "goal" by 5% or so

so the reality is barring any unforseen major donations between now and August 31st 2015 there is not going to be much of an increase in the total endowment of any noticable amount and really even if the remaining $30 million (the 15% left to go) all went to the endowment it would be really not a major factor in really increasing the endowment (other than not starting with a large endowment in the first place) and it is highly doubtful that the entire $30 million left to go would go straight to the endowment

here is the market value of the endowment for fiscal year 2011-2012 and you can see starting that year north Texas choose to report the entire system endowment to the NACUBO not just the university in Denton like in the past....also it should be noted that the reports reflect market returns AND new giving....so for some schools they could have had a negative market return, but their annual giving made up for that and then some....or some still show a loss and some could have had a positive market return and annual giving or one or the other....so it does not show just the rate of return from investments

http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2012NCSEPublicTablesEndowmentMarketValuesRevisedFebruary42013.pdf

here is fiscal year 2010-2011 and it reports just Denton

http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2011NCSEPublicTablesEndowmentMarketValues319.pdf

here is 2009-2010 again just Denton

http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2010NCSE_Public_Tables_Endowment_Market_Values_Final.pdf

2008-2009

http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2009_NCSE_Public_Tables_Endowment_Market_Values.pdf

2007-2008

http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/NES2008PublicTable-AllInstitutionsByFY08MarketValue.pdf

2006-2007 (when the campaign would have started)

http://www.nacubo.org/Images/All%20Institutions%20Listed%20by%20FY%202007%20Market%20Value%20of%20Endowment%20Assets_2007%20NES.pdf

2005-2006 (the year before the campaign)

http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/2006NES_Listing.pdf

so really the campaign (barring some major donation over the next 2 years and 4 months) is pretty much over and in "coast home" mode after spending most of it's time in "silent recruiting"

[Dave Campbell's Texas Power Poll]

Now I know who that poster was on the MWC forum and "DJ Plummy" gave it all away, uh, GL2Greatness. LOL!

When will you divulge who you are and what your affiliation to either UNT and/or TSU-SM actually is?

To quote the great Ross Perot.............I'm all ears!

A bonafide &amp; aggressive NCAA FBS level type of marketing program (copy someone elses success?) would solve many of our problems at UNT and probably save a few jobs, too. I like to see good things happen to nice people which we have at UNT, but in Denton we still must have the same criteria for success the other 120 plus FBS schools have to use. UTSA's marketing successes has obviously impressed me (and others) with their short history in the NCAA. Their goal and objective of significant butts in seats seems to have been reached IMHO. How many of us would kill to see 40,000 fans trying to get into Apogee Stadium?

Even at a much smaller scale marketing has worked for my small business which keeps most my weekends busy now and for which I can easily &amp; proudly say: I Did This! (and I did the "a bit wordy" website, too). www.soundworksdeejay.com

GMG!

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)

[Dave Campbell's Texas Power Poll]

I have no clue why the students show up, either. We have a gigantic student showing for most games and UNT does a great job of instilling school spirit. Just win a FREAKING few games to keep them coming. They showed up in droves for TSU, I think even MORE will show up for Idaho (it's a recognizable name). But they'll never come back if we lose.

I, honestly, think the crowd will be in the 27-8K. We CANNOT lose.

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 )

[UNT announces comprehensive fundraising campaign]

it is amazing that you can set your expectations very low, tell yourself they will probably find a way to still come in slightly below those....and when it finally comes out it is just even less than you can imagine

so this campaign says it has been going on since 2007 (5.5 years so far).....it mentions the PACCAR donation that was announced in Dec of 2006 so really the campaign has been going on since the 2006-2007 fisical year....so in August of this year it will have actually been going on 7 years.....when you add up the donations listed on the 2006-2012 compliance reports for the north Texas system thay add up to right about $170 million (85% of 200 million) that has been raised so far in the silent recruiting phase of the campaign and the big hurrah for the campaign in the "public phase" it to raise 30 million in some undefined amount of time because it really does not specidically say when the campaign ends....and in reality nowhere does it say when the campaign started other than in the bio of Frank Braken

nowhere else in that page does it give any time frame for the camapign when it started or when it ends and besides Franks bio and the mention of the PACCAR donation from 2006-07 you are left to guess how long it has been going on and how long it will last for and when it will end

so for anyone hoping for big new money flowing in when the campaign "starts" well it has been going on for over 6.5 years now and there is only 30 million left to go until SUCCESS! and for those wondering about athletics specifically so far we know there has been 20 million for namiing Apogee and 3 million for the basketball facility so 23 million raised for athletics so far and only 30 million left to go in the entire campaign

so 11.5% has gone to athletics and with 8 million needed for a baseball facility, team, and associated womens sports + a new track facility needed and only 30 million left to go in the entire "campaign" I would not be holding my breath for baseball any time soon or a track facility unless about 27%+ of the remainging money left to raise until SUCCESS!! will go towards athletics

IF 8 million was raised from the remaining 30 million until SUCCESS!!! that would make athletics 15.5% of the total campaign

by contrast here is how UTD is doing things

http://www.utdallas.edu/ (right on the front page at this time)

and more info

http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2013/3/26-22701_Support-for-UT-Dallas-Campaign-Reaches-1595-Millio_article-wide.html?WT.mc_id=NewsHomepageFeature

so UTD has a single year "silent recruiting phase" (vs 6.5 years) and UTD has an actual end date as well the end of FY 2014 so UTD is looking to rasie 200 million over 5 years (40 million per year) with a single year of silent recruiting VS 200 million over probably 8 years or maybe more with 6.5 years of silent recruiting and no known end date and a yearly goal of 25 million or less (depending on when the silent recruiting end date is)

contrast this with UH where the system last year raised 112.5 million and the main campus raised 109 million (with an 80 million goal)

http://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2012/october/10032012FundraisingTotals.php

or contrast that to Texas Tech that had a 1 billion dollar campaign for the entire system and went with a 5 year silent recruiting phase where they raised 606 million of the 1b total and 8 years to get the 1b

http://www.visionandtradition.com/news/story/beyond_the_horizon/

and they reached the 1b goal about 7 months early

http://www.visionandtradition.com/news/story/texas-tech-surpasses-1-billion-goal-in-historic-vision-tradition-campaign/

and for the last 5 years the TTU System has raised over 100 million (over 150 for the last 2) and the vast majority of that is for the main campus

http://m.lubbockonline.com/education/2012-04-01/kent-hance-says-hell-stay-job-least-until-he-raises-billion-dollars-tech

or even look at UTSA....they are halfway into a campaign to raise 120 million that has an actual stated end date (imagine that) and as of July 2012 they were already over 100 million (with 3 years lef to go)

http://giving.utsa.edu/

http://utsa.edu/today/2012/07/campaign.html

so even UTSA had a 6 year (6 years total including silent recruiting phase) goal of 120 million and halfway into that they were at 100 million....so there is a good chance that in 6 years TOTAL inlcuding the silent recruiting phase UTSA will raise the same amount that north Texas does in at least 8 years (since we do not know when the north Texas campaign ends) and they raised 100 million in 3 years during the mostly silent recruiting phase while it took north Texas 6.5 years all silent recruiting to raise 170 million which is 85% of the goal for the unknown period of time

here are the north Texas numbers from 2006-2012

http://untsystem.edu/regents/agendas/06-11-30/Nov2006-15%20UNT%20Gift%20Report.pdf


http://untsystem.edu/regents/agendas/07-11-15/Nov2007_16%20UNT%20Gift%20Report.pdf


http://untsystem.edu/regents/agendas/08-11-20/Nov2008-16%20UNT%20Gift%20Report.pdf


http://untsystem.edu/regents/agendas/09-08-20/Aug%202009-A.2%20UNTGift%20Report.pdf


http://untsystem.edu/regents/agendas/10-11-11/E%20UNTS%20Nov%202010%20Financial%20Report.pdf


http://untsystem.edu/ereports/consafr2011.pdf


http://untsystem.edu/ereports/FY12%20CONS794%20Financials%2011%2020%2012.pdf



2004 $13,298,028.56

2005 $19,966,364.99

2006 $14,299,528.46

2007 $23,365,835.80 ($20,331,625.58 from 2009 report)

2008 $13,910,676.34 ($13,255,083.41 from 2009 report)

2009 $12,160,562.34 ($12,595,538.81 from 2010 report)

2010 $16,279,866.65

2011 $50,000,000.00

2012 $15,600,000.00


total $179,315,839.61



Pledges (gifts + pledges + estate distributions)

2006 $13,000,000 (05-07 from 2009 report $59,000,000 total) (06-08 from 2010 report $19,800,000)

2007 $28,500,000

2008 $17,500,000 ($20,900,000 from 2009 report)

2009 $14,400,000 ($11,200,000 from 2010 report)

2010 $18,000,000

2011 $50,000,000

2012 $15,600,000


total using the 05-07 $59,000,000 combined

$206,400,000

total using the 06-08 $19,800,000 combined from 2010 report (starting total from 2006)

$117,800,000

(you search for "gift" on the reports if you want to verify)

so basically north Texas looked around at the last 6.5 years.....had one record breaking year in 2011 and added all that up and tossed up a crappy website with no real start date given, no progress chart, no yearly totals and no ending date and said "200 million 85% there from the silent recruiting phase"

so basically there was no risk taken, there was nothing to really get people excited, no real time line or goals, and it is all pretty much done and over with except for the big wind down when north Texas goes back to raising about 15% to 20% of what Tech and UH (the main campuses) raise per year and about 37% to 50% of what UTD and UTSA are aiming to raise per year for several years in the public phase of their campaign

maybe of everyone is lucky the campaign will be for two more years (who knows) and north Texas can raise another 18 million per year like during some of those "better than average years" in the silent recruiting phase and combine that with the $170 raised so far and some for the rest of this year and there can be SUPPER SUCCESS of raising $210 million over 9 years or $23.3 million per year while UTD, UH, Tech, and even UTSA raise much more than that and it would be right in line with what Texas State has been doing in their campaign which was 7 years (5 years of silent recruiting) and two years of public recruiting and a goal of 110 million that is at 131 million now with the rest of this year to go

way to really put it all on the line north Texas.....good thing bill lively was hired for 9 months and good thing that DCCCD heavy hitter was just brought in and good thing lee the idiot is so well connected in dallas!

what a campaign!!!.....raise 85% of the "goal" in the silent recruiting phase so that no one even has a clue something "major" is going on.....let everyone know SUCCESS is right around the corner, give no start date, no end date, no chart of goals or amounts raised and pretty much go back to the last two public years (is it two years?) of doing the same thing you were doing before with a webpage for people to look at and say WTF?

[Scotty Young #1 after La. tech Spring]

Those Hippos have been gettin busy!

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

[Encouraging spring helps UNT look ahead to football]

We can win with DT. Will we? I don't know. He does need to improve, but there is no point debating who the starter will be if BB is clearly not as good as DT is now. Maybe in the fall he can close the gap. DT is an FBS level QB, he may not be the best but he also isn't the worst. It could be worse, I mean, Garrett Gilbert could be our QB.

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

There was nothing wrong with our culture in the late 60's with Joe Greene etc. I liked our culture in the late 50's under Odus Mitchell, Jack Sisco's culture in the 30's was just fine. I would have to do some research to assess our culture before that, but a positive culture follows winning just as sure as the turning of this earth.

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

[Texas State]

This whole thing is frustrating enough to make one want to root for UT...good lord. Our problems will be solved if we can WIN this season. I think if we continue down this path, UTSA will pass us by. TxState, on the other hand, is like a mirror image of us (athletically, not academically)...as in they do just enough to make it seem like the administration really cares...poor attendance (especially basketball), but I don't see TSSM doing much to pass us by. Especially in the Sun Belt. The ACU thing just has no validity behind it...just annoying pessimism.

I'm not okay with us sitting by and letting this happen. I can't take much more of this. It's just painful and embarrassing, to root for us, around my friends.

The solution is to MAKE A SPLASH THIS SEASON...or schools like UTSA will continue to pass us by. Mac cannot remain if we suck this year. Period. Tired of potential and sleeping giant BS. Get it done. I totally can see how so many UNT students just follow where their job takes them and forget their school here...at this point, if I ended up back in Houston, I have no clue how many games I'd waste my money on, when UNT puts no effort back into it...ala Benford (and if we suck, and give Mac another year).

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

[Texas State]

Noticed that Texas State has raised their athletic budget from 8 million to 30 million over the past two years.

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

So Texas State and UTSA are playing FBS football for all of what, two years now, but have in place a $20 maximum semester hour charge to tuition for athletics. North Texas, who has been playing FBS ball again sionce 1995, had to basically go "stealth" on the election to narrowly get approval for a fee that is half ($10) of Texas Freaking State and UTSA just to build a new stadium, which Texas State is just expanding on theirs, not building up from scratch, while UTSA doesn't even have to build anything right now due to playing in the Alamodome. HOwever, I do see that in 2013, we do charge $15/hr for the "Universites Center at Dallas"

I just don't get it...if we don't want to play FBS football around here, its ok. Just tell us that directly. Don't implicitly sabotage the program by not giving it a full effort. How can you compete with schools in your own conference or at your same level but only charge half of what they do, even though their enrollment is not terribly far from ours? Please explain this to me...

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

Serious question, is it the culture, or the state putting limitations on the amount of our athletic fee and how it could be spent?

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

Every other university has this fee, without any restrictions (thanks for nothing, Dallas Lee). And their fee is greater than ours.

We can either decide to be a good value commuter school or decide to do things that every other university facing similar challenges do.

Well I doubt that either UTSA or Texas State are raising this fee to the maximum allowed under state law by also tagging it to some ratio of fundraising from the alumni. Its not a bad idea, but its not really effective to tie these two together. I just don't get it.

We are charging $15/hr for a "Universities Center in Dallas", but only $10 (out of a maximum of $20) for an athletics fee, which I also believe we pegged against Apogee being paid for and then goes away once that is done. UTSA has no stadium to deal with this and they charge $20/hr. Texas State is renovating their stadium and they charge $20/hr. But I forgot--neither of those schools have been named as a Top 100 Value University!! Stupid UTSA and Texas State--who would want to go to a school for anything other just classes to get their degree and never look back? We are killing you at "Cost of Attendance"!! We are ranked as a Top Value, while you foolishly pay more for something worthless like athletics...you'll never get anywhere as a universiity in connecting with your alumni doing something stupid like that.

I just don't get it. Seriously, this should be an outrage to everyone on this board and any alumni we know.

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 want to do as little as possible in athletics to keep people like you and I connected to the school. If we win, great, but they damn sure will never go over budget to attempt to make that happen.

Our endowment shows that this strategy has worked brilliantly.

they were under budget in 2012 as shown in the very first link

and appearently people do in fact care about TxState haha

[Exciting UNT Facility Master Plan Feb. 2013 Update]

For years I have heard students who take a college visit to UNT tell me how they are turned off by the first impression of the campus. Their comments are usually along the lines of "All I remember are a bunch of ugly old stores". I always tell them to look around, but first impressions are first impressions. Sack and Save really must go. I have always wondered why so many past administrations have failed to have that eyesore removed through imminent domain or by whatever means possible.

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

[Exciting UNT Facility Master Plan Feb. 2013 Update]

How I read this.

UNT needs to tell the THECB about any projects of X dollar amount. Even if it does or does not have the money in hand or planned for in bonds.

I expect everything marked First Phase, is already well on its way to being paid for/bonded. Most of the money will come from the legislature, as we have been told to expect the largest public funds outlay in the history of the school. A lot of it will be in the form of dorms and teaching space. The THECB has been talking about making UNT a major destination for over a decade now, mainly to take growth stress off of UT/aTm and it seems the money is about to be put down.

First phase includes the hotel/convention center. That makes sense because it will be the new digs for school of hospitality. It also includes the baseball stadium, which can't be state education fund money. It must be coming from some combination of existing fees, existing bonds, new bond issues, or donations.

First phase does not include expansion of Apogee. I don't expect that to happen any time in the near future. The school just has to notify the THECB so that it could plan to do so at some point.

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