GL2Greatness

really a "debate" and topic that comes out of ignorance and envy even 20 or 30 years ago it was not nearly as cheap or easy to fly all over the country for fans or teams.....football teams have 80+ players which is way more than any other sport and flying them all over the country is not cheap or easy there is a risk of injury in football that is much greater than most sports, it is impossible to have games less than a week apart which means even if you choose a single venue or a few venues teams and fans will be staying in hotels or traveling back and forth to see more than a single game.....until very recently it was pretty much impossible to have a football field host games back to back to back like a basketball court and using the crappy old style artificial turf only meant the chance of injury went up greatly and even artificial turf can have wear and tear that needs to be looked at after a game especially the old crap so again having a single venue or a few venues where "football fans" could show up and watch more than one game in a day or two was not possible like it is in basketball and other sports...even pro football plays at the home venue of the teams with the best record until the final game....and before some idiot claims college football could do the same there are dozens if not more college towns and college venues that could not host a playoff game of any significance without leaving a lot of fans sitting at home without the ability to get to that venue easily, get a room, or get a ticket....what a great way to run a sport into the ground by giving the "little guy" (the one that never delivers a damn thing in terms of fans, viewers, or revenues) a "chance" only to have that game played in front of 30,000 fans in some dump while the team that consistently sells out a 60 or 80K or larger stadium still has to fill a large part of the stands, but a large part of their fan base goes without the ability or opportunity to actually support their team in person....not to mention the logistics of getting a hotel room for the visiting team, the TV crews, the officials, and on and on with short notice.....only a real moron can't see the numerous issues with that and on the flip side with more than a game or two for a playoff at a "neutral site" again you have the issue of the fans the teams seeing a game, then either waiting a week in a hotel (if their team wins) or returning home and then flying back in for the game again......since the VAST majority of college sports programs including football programs lose money and most teams struggle to sell out their stadiums on a week by week basis even with months of advance notice about the schedule only a true dolt thinks those same teams will suddenly have fans showing up out of the wood work to go to multiple games out of town on very short notice so either way "playoffs" at the home of the team with the better record or "playoffs" at a neutral site past more than one round or two is going to be a huge joke over the long haul as teams sneek in occasionally and then their fans just can't or won't show up and their town and venue turn out to be a disaster for the visiting teams, officials, and TV crews.....they pick the date and place of the super bowl years in advance for a reason and same with the MNC for college football......so that BFE does not need to suddenly need to try and support 20 or 30K fans and officials and TV people when they most they have ever had to support was 17,000 with 6 months notice that the game was going on that day in the regular season then there is the whole concept of how the bowl games came into being....the individual conferences conceived those games, started them, built them, and supported....none of the turds in the CUSA or Belt had anything at all to do with making the Rose Bowl into a winner and they deserve ZERO of that revenue because they had nothing to do with any of it....same for the Cotton Bowl, Sugar Bowl or any other major bowl game and even today they bring nothing to the table in terms of revenues or fans upport for those types of bowls.....those types of teams have their bowl games like the NO Bowl and the total and complete lack of overall support both in terms of fans and finances whows why those teams have nothing to cry about or to demand from anyone especially financially the BCS was an agreement amongst bowl games that CONFERENCES started and that CONFERENCEES built back when half the teams in the CUSA and the Belt and the like were playing D1-AA ball in front of 5K fans and losing money every week doing it....there is not a chance in hell any of them have a right to complain about the conferences and teams and fans and viewers that built those bowls and supported those bowls "get rich" while those that have never done a damn thing for themselves or anyone else sit around and cry for a piece of something they had nothing to do with....here is a concept demand the NETWORKS pay big money for the NO Bowl and charge huge money for NO Bowl tickets and then when the networks say F off and the fans don't show up you can collect what you "deserve' and you will be "rich"......stepping up 30 or 50 years after teams, fans and conferences have made something happen and demandng a piece of it is a bunch of BS.....go out and make something for yourselves and then you can have all you "earn" from that instead of sitting around with crappy facilities, crappy fans, no fan support and no one caring to do anything about except holding out the begging bowl and complaining that those that have fan support, viewership, facilities, and that have invested in their program bother to get a return on that instead of handing it to leeches and mooches there are 4 spots now schedule someone besides crap and actually manage to beat them in front of more than a few thousand fans and you ca actually have a chance....Boise, Hawaii, Utah, TCU, and the like have done it....so EARN it like they did

um at least have a clue when you rant and know what you are talking about Rice has 3,708 undergraduate and 2,374 graduate degree-seeking students so that is 39% graduate students......hardly mostly undergrad by any definition http://graduate.rice.edu/degreesdata/ from dec 2010 to may 2011 Rice graduated 619 masters students and 178 doctoral students for the entire year in 2010 north Texas was 1669 masters and 219 PhDs and 11 professional for 2011 it was 1820, 210, 7 so Rice is easily holding their own as a school with a very large graduate enrollment.....there is a reason you did not get into Rice and there is a reason you probably will not do well at UH as a graduate student and you are even more cluelsss to think the BE is worse than the CUSA

even if the AQ was to remain after next year it was awarded based on factors dealing with on the field performance......so no there is not a chance in hell it would go to CUSA especially the "new" CUSA it would go to the MWC that was close to being eligible for an AQ qualification or even to the MAC before it would go to the CUSA

Cal is a public university and Penn State is considered a public university as well even though as of now it is "state related" which means it gets public tax dollars, is exempt from paying any type of taxes and at the same time it can also shield records request for various things like a private school prior to being "state related" in status it was considered a public university and it is still the lang grant university for the state of PA Stanford and USC are the private universities in the pac and Northwestern is the only true private university in the B1G

A&M has been looking at expanding/renovating/building a new stadium since way back when johnny football was nothing more than an entry on a criminal conviction database

this is factually 100% incorrect there is ZERO seed money coming from the city of dallas.....the ONLY money dallas promised was money to renovate the former muny building and even that money was only enough to do outside repairs and a SLIGHT amount of repairs/renovations to the inside to turn the building into a shell for north Texas to then renovate for full use.....and the WORST part of that is dallas has now welched on a large portion of that money and at this time dallas is only willing to do the smallest amount of renovations to the OUTSIDE ONLY to make the building weather proof so that is does not sustain more weather damage because of leaks and other issues.....they are not going to fund anything for exterior beautifucations or renovations and they are going to fund ZERO for anything on the interior and they are so far behind on the bare min of exterior renovations for bare min weather proofing that the north Texas "system" is having to renovate the upper floors of the UCD building to hold class until dallas completes the exterior work on the muny building and in hopes that dallas will one day come through with the rest of the money the promissed for the further renovations of the muny building and the renovations for the UCD building are cming 100% at the expense of the north Texas "system"......dallas and The state of Texas have not contributed one single dime to those renovations that are going to cost about 20 million+ I refer you to page 13 and 19 http://untsystem.edu/pdfs/chancellor-presentations/DowntownDallas_06-07.pdf you can also note that there is no mention of the UCD building for law classes on any of those pages (the "legal") entry is for the system legal services so in the above article it states dallas will pay HALF of a 30 million dollar renovation http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/print-edition/2010/12/03/unt-law-building-awaiting-funds.html?page=all now in the above article we see that the "system" is trying to get 46 million to renovate just the interior.....and there are dallas morining news articles out there (from befoe the DMN went paywall) that specifically state that dallas had welched on their 16 million dollar committment to pay for HALF of the renovations and instead was going to do 8 million in weather proofing just so the building does not fall further apart so in typical north Texas system fashion a projject went from 30 million with half covered by dallas to 32 million with dallas giving 16 million to a request for state funds of 46 million with dallas doing 8 million in turd polishing......so the are 30 million over budget of what they said it would take JUST TO GET CLASSROOM SPACE for an UNNEEDED LAW SCHOOL......that is 46 million in state tax dollars and state education dollars being FLUSHED DOWN THE DAMN TOILET and we all know what the TWU law school would have cost in the past and DID cost TAMU......and it was NOT 46 million (+8 million of turd olishing and weather proofing) oh yea and then there is the little fact of using 20 million for planning and construction for TWO FLOORS OF TEMPORARY HOUSING IN THE UCD BUILDING for the damn law school that IS NOT NEEDED so now we are at 20 million in "SYSTEM" funds for TEMP housing of two floors....NONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN FUNDED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS and 100% of which came from "SYSTEM" funds.....in other words DENTON STUDENTS MONEY because there is no magic "system" slush fund and there is no line item budgeting or budget from The State of Texas to cover that 20 million renovation of 2 floors of the UCD building for TEMPORARY housing of an UNNEEDED law school so now we are at 20 million spent (see wasted) for an unneeded law school of "system" (see Denton students) money and 8 million in turd polishing and weather proofing (half of what dallas promissed) and an attempt to get 46 million from The state of texas for interrior work on the muny building......so we are at 74 million to open an UNNEEDED LAW SCHOOL and that is not hiring a single warm body or holding a single class or buying a single law library book.....and oh yea there was the 5 million in "start up" funds that was given in 2009 to hire a dean and associate deans (none of which was for building renovations or any such thing)......so now we are at 20 million spent for renovations (funded by the "system").....5 million for "startup" (actually funded by The State of Texas).....and 8 million in turd polishing by dallas (half of what they promised of what was said to be a 30 million dollar total renovation to make the building ready to use) so we are at 33 million spent and 46 million mre requested or 79 million damn dollars total for an UNNEEDED LAW SCHOOL.....and the city of dallas has only provided 8 million total of that and that is HALF of what they said they would origonally provide......when an open, operating, and accrediated law school around the way was available for 20-25 million.... oh yea and that leaves out the fact that the UCD building was purchased (against the wishes of the THECB) from the dallas non-profit consortium (mostly DISD and some others I believe) again using "system" (see Denton students) money.....and at the time of that purchase the THECB required that the UCD be open and available to all universities that wished to use it and then the "system" informed the Denton camous that the rent was going up......even though "system" dollars (ZERO STATE SPECIAL APPROPRIATED FUNDS) were used to buy the building http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2010/apr/05/open-records-request-university-north-texas-batail/ here we see that Dr. B got crosswise with lee the idiot over the UCD lease at a time when the Denton campus was already short on space......lee the idiot is spinning as if there is plenty of space and that he had no knowledge of any type of space or rent issue with TAMU-C or north Texas-Denton http://www.theeasttexan.com/dallas-a-m-commerce-students-face-potential-displacement-1.2128163#.UT-sPsVbk6g but here we can CLEARLY see that the north Texas system was telling Denton, TAMU-C and UTA that they were going to start using the lower floors for administration and that those entities could either move, purchase the upper floors and renovate them, or figure something else out.....but of course now the upper floors are being renovated using "system" money for 5-8 years of law classroom space......so really the UCD members are being pushed out PERIOD and lee the jackass is lying about it the whole time http://www.theeasttexan.com/2.5963/unt-to-purchase-universities-center-1.890187#.UT-sQMVbk6g and in this article we can see that a "federation" of schools consisting of north Texas, TAMU-C and TWU was suppose to all cooperate on UCD decisions.....but of course we can see that has not happened and we also see where there were 5 universities participating in the UCD at that time and as of now TWU is gone, UTD is gone, Midwestern left before that, and UTA is down to one program offering which means it is north Texas and TAMU-C that is being told to GTFO by jackass lee and really the Denton campus is being told to GTFO all after the "system" (see Denton students) coughed up money to buy the building when the reality was there was never a need to purchase it other than to set up camp in dallas and start a waste of state education dollars downtown failed redevelopment project so again there has 100% been a MASSIVE diversion of funds from the Denton campus to dallas......it has happened with the unneeded and ill advised purchase of the UCD......it has happened with the "system" (see Denton students) funding of the renovations for the two upper floors of the UCD for the law school and HERE is proof http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2012/09/25/unts-downtown-dallas-campus.html and oh yea that "system" funded 20 million dollar renovation.....it is now 25 million so we have spent 38 million so far on a law school that is not needed and we want 46 million more....so 84 million.....and as of now dallas has paid 8 million to turd polish a building (half of what they promised) that is not even usable and will take 46 million (over 80% more than first estimated at 30 million total) and The State of Texas has so far kicked in 5 million for "start up" cost in 2009 again in the above article it CLEARLY says the system is awaiting funds for capital projects.....and while it refers to the muny building that INCLUDES the (now) 25 million dollar renovation of the upper two floors of the UCD.....because again it is clear as day that the ONLY money ever appropriated for ANYTHING do do with the law school was the 5 million for "operations" in 2009 from The State of Texas......100% of everything else has come from "system" funds (see Denton Students) you can search and search and search the state appropriations records and you will see ZERO money for UCD renovations ever appropriated and the only law school money you will ever see is 5 million for "opearations" in 2009 so a law school that needed 30 million to get a nice new free standing building is now spending 25 million (with ZERO from dallas and 100% from the "system") to renovate two floors of a building that the "system" (see Denton students) bought when they did not need to for TEMPORARY classroom space quite the bargin there when an open, operational, staffed and accrediated law school could have been had for those same dollars....lee the idiot is quite the deal maker and bargin shopper!.....one hell of a leader there lee!!!.....84 million spent or requested and not a single faculty or staff member hired, not a single book or journal purchased, not a single tility bill paid and not a single student yet enrolled!!!!......and so far of that 84 million 38 million has been spent, only 5 million has come from the state and only 8 million has come from dallas and that is for a building that may never be used for the law school because it needs 46 million more in renovations that The State of Texas has yet to approve! and just to prove that the "system" screws Denton students http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2009/06/15/story11.html?page=all read the above article.....where The State of Texas said NO to building a second building bigger than state formula funding allowed, but the "system" wanted it bigger because "they are running out of space" and "growing so fast so they used "belt tightening" and made a "calculated risk" and spent the 14.5 million of "system" funds and to quote the idiiot lee directly At any rate, “the UNT System will tighten its belt and be prepared to cover the cost of this project over its life if that is necessary,” Jackson said. ok well what happened in 2011....well guess what did NOT happen.....what did NOT happen is The State of Texas did NOT cover the additional cost of that building being larger than needed.....why you ask.....well because that larger building was NEVER NEEDED and so far the "system" is coverign that "calculated risk" of 14.5 million of "system" (see Denton students) money with "belt tightening" (see doing less on the DENTON campus) and this year in 2013 will The State of Texas cover that additional 14.5 million.....well the magic 8 ball says HELL NO.....why you might ask.....because the "growth" at the dallas campus since it opened goes like this: 2008 to 2012 2,109 2,084 2,032 2,100 so that is correct folks....that "GROWTH" over 4 years of being a free standing university that required that "calculated risk" and "system belt tightening" was a massive NEGATIVE 9 STUDENTS.....NEGATIVE GROWTH.....14.5 mlllion system dollars WASTED and The State of Texas 2 years later saying lee the fing idiot Kiss My Ass we are no longer covering your stupidity so go ahead and dump it on the backs of Denton students so we have 14.5 million of "calculated risk belt tightening" for a "needed" building in south dallas for a NEGATIVE 9 "growth" of the student body over 4 years and 25 million of UCD upper floor renovations for temporary law school renovations all out of the "system" (see Denton) students budgets and at the same time in lil' ole' Denton Texas on the "flagship" campus of the north Texas "system" the fashion merchandising students are having their fashion collection placed into long term storage and their classes are being moved to temp shacks along with the dance majors classes also going to temp shacks because there is no money for a new building to replace the two buildings being knocked down to make way for the new union building golly gee lee the fing moron I bet 25 million of "system" funds and 14.5 million of "system funds" could have been combined to build a nice 39.5 million dollar buildng on the Denton cmpus to house those tow MAJOR (soon to be formerly major) programs on the Denton camus instead of WASTED on "temporary" housing for an unneeded law school and on a larger than state approved building in south dallas for -9 student growth over 4 freaking years so again it is CLEAR AS DAY and has been 100% presented and factually backed up that dallas has come up with next to ZERO money to get the law school going and it has been 100% proven that the "system" has wasted 39.5 million of "system" (see Denton students) dollars that were not directly appropriated by The State ofTexas for larger buildings on south dallas and for TEMPORARY law school classroom space while a FULLY FUNCTIONAL law school was available for 20-25 million across the way and while Denton students have their resources placed into storage and unavailable for use and go to classes in temp shacks littering the middle of campus and as for the "new paradigm" of the law school 1. it has not been accrediation agency approved for 2 year law degrees 2. there has been no accrediation agency approval for a new paradigm in instruction 3. it is highly doubtful that faculty that are worth a damn will leave a current legal job especially in todays environment to come to a place to teach a "new paradigm" especially when those methods and ideas are not accrediation agency approved 4. unlike in some states (cali specifically) in Texas you need to graduate from an accrediated law school to take the bar so it is not possible in Texas to say screw accrediation we have a new paradigm 5. it is highly unlikely that you will get an entirely new faulty body that all agrees on what the new paragidm is even if you can teach it and have it accrediated....which means you will have to argue for years (with legal faculty no less) to decide what the new paragidm is.....because it is as yet undefined 6. if you want to see an example of taking the "new paradigm" route to education of any type the GREAT news is you only have to look right within the cozy confines of the north Texas system......right at south dallas.....because the have had massive fculty discent and fighting over what was stated and how they were to teach and operate when various faculty members were hired and it has caused a great deal of faculty turnover here are some articles on it http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20121120-editorial-unique-vision-of-unt-dallas-is-good-for-north-texas.ece http://chronicle.com/article/U-of-North-Texas-Dallas/133137/ http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/print-edition/2012/10/05/unt-dallas-rewriting-curriculum-rules.html?page=all http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20120823-unt-dallas-wants-to-keep-faculty-s-response-to-consultants-recommendations-secret.ece and of course CLEARLY the "new paradigm" concept (either discussed or actually implemented) is a MASSIVE success.....because enrollment in south dallas is down 9 students over 4 years (nearly 100% of the students are half time or less) and new buildings are being built!!!!!! SUCCESS!!!! we have done it we have broken the mold.....on how to flush millions and millions of dollars down the toilet on BS that is not needed or that is a flat joke WELL DONE LEE!!!!

al hurley was a joke and was the epitome of riding the pine and hate to burst the bubble, but the UT and TAMU Systems are not really expansionist they do not go around looking for other schools to take over or other systems to disolve and UT especially would not want another school in the metromess the schools that were PLACED into the UT and TAMU Systems in the 80s and 90s were put into those systems not at the request of those systems, but at the request of the legislators in their areas because they wanted to reduce the amount of PUF funds that UT, TAMU and PVAMU got for "excellence" the UT and TAMU systems have repeatedly turned down the chance to expand their systems especially when it did not make sense the UT System laughed at opening a campus in south dallas when it was offered and the TAMU System laughed at the idea of a full blown university and instead was looking at an upper division system center in conjunction with a community college as proven by the 2000 press release from the idiot royce west still on his senate website today about Aggies in South dallas......and that upper division system center approach is the same one used by the TAMU System in areas where there was an actual educational need like south San Antonio and Central Texas so al hurley did not fend off any take over because there was NEVER a threat of that ever.....and other than that he was a do nothing that allowed useless and out dated programs to continue long past their need and turned down every opportunity to do anything meaningful and he watched the faculty take over the university and turn it into a center of apathy and a place where tenure requirements consisted of having a pulse

he did specifically ask her about that and UT (and possibly one other team) were the only other jobs she was interested in and at the time UT had coach G that looked to be a very solid hire and sure to stay at UT for at least the next few years and at the end of the season coach G had yet another very very poor season, decided she was not up to the pressure of UT womens BB and she resigned from the job and coach Ashtons dream job was suddenly and unexpectedly immediately open and since she had already made very clear in her interview that UT was specifically a job she was interested in and would leave for RV expected that she would at least interview for the job

and into CUSA......with FAU...

if they were smart they would have hired SoundworkS Sports Tele-Marketing of Weatherford, Texas

for the Denton campus pretty much nothing....one can talk about enrollment growth, but every university in Texas is experiencing enrollment growth and many of the larger ones are growing at a faster rate than north Texas-Denton and those schools do not seem to be suffering the same quality issues related to that growth.....and there was the decline in enrollment from 2010-11 that most if not all other large universities in Texas did not experience and the growth has still not caught back up to the 2010 numbers in 2012......most of that growth loss was in post-baccalaureate students and in masters candidates and masters candidates conduct a large amount of research at most universities and the lack of growth in research is probably partially related to the decline in masters candidates there is the mention of the dallas campus, but that campus was never needed and is still not needed today and it has been an independent university for 4 years now and "enrollment growth" is actually -9 students in that 4 years enrollment in 2009 was 2109 students, 2010 it was 2084, 2011 it was 2032 (so three straight years of declines in enrollments nothing says "need" like declining enrollment year after year......in 2012 there was "growth" to 2100 students.....so over 4 years there was a negative growth rate of -9 students.......again nothing says "need" like declining enrollments over 4 years compare that to the other two universities that became freestanding schools after starting as system centers......TAMU-Central Texas and TAMU-SA TAMU-Central Texas was 2188, 2137, 2096, 2253 from 2009-12 TAMU-SA was 2343, 3120, 3554, 4116......so at least TAMU-Central Texas has had mostly positive growth and positive growth over a 4 year period and TAMU-SA is doing way better than the dallas crap......oh yea and one key difference.......both of those TAMU schools are upper division schools VS the dallas campus that is a full 4 year school......so even with a much larger pool of potential candidates it still lags badly compared especially to SA......just pathetic the amount of time and state and "system" (Denton campus students) resources that have been wasted in dallas so really the dallas campus is pretty much a failure and has been since it started and will continue to be the law school is not a success because it STILL has NOT been funded to open and there is ZERO guarantee it will be funded to open this budget session.....it is such a "success" that north Texas has had to twice delay when they would "accept students" because twice it has not been funded to open by the legislature and the fact is te law school is NOT needed, it was NEVER needed, it will NOT be needed long into the future and it is another giant waste of resources already and IF it is funded to actually open this year or two years from now or ever it will be a joke and a failure and another large waste of education resources.....hardly a "success" opening yet another thing that is not needed and is just a waste.....not to mention that lee the idiot failed to get in writing the dallas promise to help renovate the old muny building and dallas has now welched on that promise (even though lee is this well connected dallas guy) so the "system" is wasting money to renovate the UCD upper floors and then still wants to eventually move to the muny building if dallas ever comes up with money to help renovate it.....which would leave the renovated upper UCD floors useless and vacant and the UCD has declined greatly under lee the idiot because north Texas bought the building against the advice of the THECB and then even though they promised the THECB they would be friendly t alll the other UCD participating universities they pretty much ran off MidWestern, TWU, UTD, and they have jacked up the rent on TAMU-Commerce, the Denton campus and UTA is basically only running one program out of there now and will probably eventually pull out ans TAMU-Commerce is already shopping for another building because lee the idiot has been so hard to work with and as the emails that were brought to light from the FOI request Dr. B was actually going to pull the Denton campus out of the UCD for the same reasons and that is part of why she was fired the Denton campus basically footed the bill to buy the UCD, they footed the bill to renovate it, and now the reward for that is increased rents paid to the "system".....some bargain that was haha the only true success under lee the idiot is the pharmacy degree program and of course that will NOT go to Denton it will either go to Fort Worth and then eventually dallas (the new flagship) or it will stay in Fort Worth, but either way they are already selling the program as something to transfer into after getting your first two years of schooling at community college and not a single hint of starting in Denton and then transferring in two of the three components are without presidents and the Denton campus has a retired guy riding the pine going through the motions and coming up with tag lines, cold hotdogs and swag bags as accomplishments so the only single real "up" is the pharmacy program that is distancing as far as it can from Denton and the rest of the successes are massive failures and waste of large amounts of money on crap that is not needed, never was needed, and will not be needed long into the future and "system building" at the expense of the Denton campus and at a financial and quality cost to the Denton students and the single most important he was said to be hired for "fund raising connections" still continues to be a giant joke topped off recently by the bill lively fiasco and just growing worse by the day, week, month, and year

there is no new CUSA TV deal the CUSA TV deal is already brand new and goes to 2015-16 and no other conference including the SEC has been able to renegotiate an existing TV deal because of changes in conference makeup the Big 12 was the only one that came close and that was because their tier 1 deal was set to expire i a year or two and ESPN decided to go ahead and make a deal now rather than wait the CUSA will not be breaking a deal that just started last year and goes for several more years because the networks don't have to do that and they don't have to pay more money and there is no reason for them to do so period

I stand to be corrected, but I think UH and TTech have reached Tier 1 and North Texas meets all criteria except our endowment coffers needs millions more. At one time, it was just UH, TTech and the UNT systems who were the next group up for Tier 1 status, but now I think many more institutions have been added to those 3 and are now seeking Tier 1. GMG! when the whole NRUF (National Research University Fund) concept started "tier 1" was a university that was a member of the AAU California had 9, New York had 7 (6 now with Syracuse withdrawing) and on and on Texas has 3 UT, TAMU, and Rice so that was the definition The state of Texas was and is using for "tier 1"......so Texas cannot designate any university as "tier 1" because of course Texas does not control the AAU the goals of the NRUF and TRIP (Texas Reseach Incentive Program) is for universities to earn matching funds for donations private that go towards specific kinds of research and academics and meet particular dollar amounts for various levels of matching (the TRIP portion) and for schools to meet a first criteria of 45 million in restricted research as well as meeting 4 out of 6 other criteria (all for a period of two years in a row) to qualify for a payout from the NRUF endowment the idea was that with increased funding and larger endowments eventually those schools would be able to meet the kinds of metrics that AAU schools have if not actually gain membership to the AAU (extremely hard to do) origonallly 7 schools were elegible for TRIP matching funds and to attempt to meet the metrics needed to gain NRUF funding those were Texas Tech, UH, UTSA, UTA, UTD, UTEP, and north Texas......they were the emerging research schools in Texas and to be an emerging research school in Texas you need to offer at least 10 dctorial programs, graduate at least 20 doctoral students a year, have at least 150 total doctoral candidates, and 14 million in research on Jan 12 2012 TxState became the 8th emerging research university in Texas and as such is now eligible for TRIP matching funds and for eventual NRUF participation this is for INDIVIDUAL UNIVERSITIES.....it has NEVER been something for systems also there was NEVER a time when only three schools were "designated" (or any other term) to be anointed the next "tier 1" school.....it has always been at least 7 universities (those listed above) that were in the emerging research category as classified by The State of Texas and the metrics have always been the same and the schools had to meet or exceed those metrics for two years running.....if you do not meet or exceed those metrics you do not participate in the NRUF period and that is for individual universities not systems by the definition that The State of Texas used when first discussing numbers of "tier 1" schools in Texas UH and Texas Tech are not "tier 1" because they are not AAU members.....UH has made a false claim of being "ranked" "tier 1" by the Carnegie Foundation.....except there is just one problem with that claim the Carnegis Foundation specifically does not use the term "tier 1", they specifically do not rank universities (they classify them based on similar metrics which they CLEARLY state in no way implies similarity of quality of education), and they specifically state their classifications are not to be used as rankings or comparisons of quality of programs or universities.....so the Carnegie Foundation never ranked UH anything much less "tier 1" both Texas Tech and UH are ranked "tier 1" by the US Snooze the only rankings listing that udes that term, but that is still not what The state of texas was using or meaning when they ever stupidly and erroneously used that same term.....it was always about AAU membership as of now Texas Tech and UH are the two universities in Texas that have qualified for NRUF funding from the NRUF endowment.....but that does not make them "tier 1" based on the AAU membership metric that The State of Texas first used when they looked at the number of "tier 1" universities in other states VS Texas the first metric that must be met for NRUF funding is 45 million in RESTRICTED research and after that 4 of 6 other criteria mst be met...as of the last report UTD will be the next university in Texas to qualify for NRUF funding and after that it will probably be UTA....there is a slim chance that UTD will qualify in 2014 they have met the restricted research criteria of 45 million at this point and as of the 2012 report they had met 3 of the needed 4 out of other 6 critiria, but I don't think they will meet the needed 4 critiria in 2012 and they possibly will in 2013, but for 2014 that would not be two years running the soonest UTA would be able to qualify would probably be 2016.....they are a little ways away on the restricted research and they met two out of the 6 critiera.....UTEP is further along on restricted research and will probably be at 45 million in restricted research for 2013, but they only met 1 out of the 6 other criteria and are a ways away from meeting any of the others UTSA is at the same level of restricted research as UTA, but they met none of the 6 other criteria although they now meet one of them which is membership in Phi Kappa Phi......the same single critiria out of the 6 that north Texas, and UTEP met and UTSA is a ways away from meeting any of the others TxState if they had been included in the report may have met a single criteria for freshman class metrics and I am sure they will soon be a member of PKP as well or will be as soon as then need to be, but they would be a ways away on any of the other criteria for 2010 -> 2012 here are the restricted research numbers Texas Tech $50,071,546 $50,205,458 $46,106,813 UH $56,564,687 $53,100,109 $51,663,426 UTD $40,906,393 $43,659,514 $45,573,771 UTEP $37,813,868 $40,179,653 $43,156,720 UTA $32,288,186 $29,869,344 $32,284,249 UTSA $28,084,442 $30,429,992 $32,356,827 TxState $17,778,634 $19,078,112 $21,761,575 north Texas $13,293,480 $14,476,509 $16,557,183 the above numbers are for RESTRICTED research which is the metric needed for NRUF funding and it needs to be at 45 million for 2 years running before anything else matters as of 2012 for the other criteria (six of them with 4 needed for 2 years running) Texas Tech and UH had 4 out of 6 and qualified for NRUF funding UTD had 3 out of 6 UTA had 2 out of 6 north Texas and UTEP had 1 out of 6 at the time of the report UTSA had 0 out of 6, but is now a member of PKP so they have 1 out of 6 TxState was not in the report, but may have met the freshman class metric if they had been in the report and they also could easily become members of PKP just as UTSA did shortly after the report in the strategic plan for research 2012-2020 north Texas had a goal of being at 45 million in restricted research by 2015 and the "goal" for 2011 was 18 million so north Texas is well off that goal even a year later and 2015 will probably be out for gettign to 45 million as will 2017 so probably 2019 at the soonest to meet the needed 45 million for restricted research much less 4 of the other 6 needed criteria for 2 years running for 2010-2011 there was 50 million in available TRIP matching funds the allocation of those mmatching funds for those two years was Texas Tech 21,161,251.99 UTD 15,112,640.19 UH 4,543,896.75 UTEP 2,950,000 UTSA 2,787,500 north Texas 1,677,940.48 UTA 550,000 TxState was not eligible at that time the 2012 numbers are not in yet, but 50 million for 2012-2013 was available again and there is a chance it will be 75 million for 2014-2015 the NRUF payout to UH and Texas Tech was about 9.5 million each per year for 2012-2013

another stupid and laughable claim the only losses that UTSA had were Utah State and San Jose State that were both 11-2 and La Tech that was 9-3 and Rice that was 7-6...there is not a chance in hell north Texas would have been 10-2 and there is little chance north Texas would have even beaten Rice out of those 4 schools much less any of the other three

yes TxState should prove something like going down to UH and kicking the hell out of them the way north Tex.....oh wait never mind and yea TxState needs to "prove something" like north Texas did this year with 4 wins and only 3 of those over D1-A schools oh wait TxState had 4 wins and 3 were over D1-A schools......they had wins over two of the crappiest D1-A schools out there.....NMSU and Idaho.......and oh lookie here north Texas had wins over two of the crappiest D1-A schools out there USA and FAU.......and then TxState had a win over Stephen F. Austin that is a D1-AA school and lookie here north Texas had a win over a D1-AA team TSU that just plain sucks compared to SFA and then TxState kicked the crap out of UH that a few weeks later kicked the crap out of north Texas and then north Texas had the win over Louisiana so yea TxState should really take advice from north Texas fans on "accomplishing something" when the reality is TxState pretty much "accomplished" the exact same thing in their first year in D1-A as north Texas did in their 18th year back in D1-A both had 4 total wins......one over a D1-AA team with TxState beating the better D1-AA team and two wins over some of the crappiest D1-A programs out there and then a win over a better D1-A team with TxState kicking the crap out of a school that both teams played at UH while UH kicked the crap out of north Texas so yea the part about just because you have 85 players does not mean you compete.....I would think that applies as much to a school that is in their 18th season back in D1-A and still winning 4 games mostly over crap VS a school playing in their first season in D1-A and actually stomping a common opponent VS getting stomped by a common opponent and same goes with any UTSA comparisons......both beat a really bad common opponent, both beat some other crap, and both beat a D1-AA team with UTSA beating the better D1-AA team of your choice and UTSA also actually beating more total D1-A teams VS north Texas and UTSA beating the team that kicked the crap out of UH to open the season while north Teas got stomped by UH at the end of the day north Texas beat crap to get 4 wins and UTSA beat crap to get 1 more total D1-A win (4) vs the three than north Texas has......but yea somehow north Texas beat better crap even though one was a common opponent this is what makes this message board such a laugh the inability to accept reality even when it is beating you over the head

TxState and UAB were both fully D1-A last year as well (not to mention UAB was one of the 4 total wins north Texas had last year) so the reality is UTSA had one more win over D1-A teams last year than north Texas had and they had wins over Georgia State and See You Later McNeese State both of which are dramatically superior to Texas Southern

even if they only have 60K fans show up to a game they are probably paying an average of $60 per seat so that is 3.6 million + parking and concessions so it makes sense they pay for a home game.....if they have 100K show up that is 6 million + the rest also this article makes it sound like they are losing or have lost 200 million over the last few years when the reality is the article states they have only been revenue negative one time in recent history and they covered that with reserves.....they are keeping back 7 million per year for the next 3 years from handing that over to the academic side and they will have more conference revenue coming in the 200 million is long term debt and the adjustments they have made will get them back revenue positive in the coming years and that includes paying down their long term debt and probably not taking on any more long term debt in the near future and if they can start willing the fans will show up again as will donations it is just a large amount of long term debt compared to most + too many coaching changes and a single revenue negative year that has already been addressed for the future.......again it is not like the article title makes it out as if they have lost 200 million over the last few years or as if they are not able to cover their debt payments or like they have been spending 20 million more per year just to run their programs than they were taking in and now find themselves with 200 million to pay down

I brought this up when he was hired and was roasted for it lets look at the reality.....VLR is not so much "athletics friendly" as he is athletics tolerant......when he was at WSU they had issues with him and Mike Price because VLR did not want football coaches making more than top level administrators what has VLR done since he has been here......there is the student union plan that is good as far as the union itself goes, but that was very poorly handled in terms of the fashion program and one other program being moved to temp shacks in the middle of campus he took away the long term plan that had specific goals spelled out and replaced it with a new tag line, swag bags, and cold hotdogs and "goals" that are just plain stupid.......and if you look at where north Texas is as far as restricted research and the goals that were spelled out clearly in the Dr. B plan they are well behind the goals for each year and actually losing ground enrollment took a dip when pretty much every university in the state was growing and after that one year dip they have not gained back to where they were before the dip tuition was raised to hire more faculty.....because of the enrollment dip there was a one year wait to hire those new faculty.....but the tuition increase was still collected of course and the decline in enrollment was less than 1,000 students total out of what was just over 36K students at the time inability to convince the BOR to increase admissions requirements VS the take all warm bodies approach so we can cover "system" initiatives in dallas every emerging research university in Texas except north Texas and UTA have an on going capital campaign north Texas has been near the bottom each year for matching TRIP funds there was talk on here about a big September capital campaign announcement......came and went nothing happened......the hotdog warmer must have been broken the bill lively disaster falls squarely on lee the idiot, but that is part of the issue of having a system that runs the universities in the system out of the chancellors office instead of the university presidents office I see little chance that any significant plans for the future will be formulated under VLR and I see little chance that any significant capital campaign will be started because about the time those plans were in place he would surely be looking to step down and who wants to come in and lead a "major" university while following the plan of the last guy....which is why north Texas (and lee the idiot) hires yes men and yes women for president so the system can continue to micro manage while the president just goes along with it I was concerned that the Dr. B hiring was a "yes man" hire based on her resume.....she was a "system" administrator for the UNC system and was the acting chancellor (president) for a small arts component of the system so she had never been the president of a major research university and the only president (chancellor for them) position she had held was temp and for a small arts component and other than that she was a "system" coordinator basically She was somewhat better than I expected because she at least showed she wanted to lead and not follow and she wanted the Denton campus to be the leader not the deep pockets and financier for stupid system ideas.....I don't agree with some of her ideas though like the Peas Studies degree (make mine super size with a coke please) or giving full scholarships to C students, but she CLEARLY saw through the lee idiot jackson attempts to use the Denton campus as the cash cow and bond backer for the dallas projects and that is what the conflict was really about.....so she was gone then comes VLR......a guy that was retired and is 73 years old......university presidents often only stay around 5-6 years at the most and VLR is looking at about 2.25 years "on the job" now...so he is either going to get on the ball soon and come up with some long term plans, a capital campaign, and actually get something done one "plan" from 2006 that was for 2008-2013 is set to expire and the Dr. B plan that was for 2011-2020 is still out there, but not a great deal of that appears to be happening and what is happening is missing the goals and missing bigger every year the number of PhD programs and masters programs has been cut dramatically (as was needed) to realign faculty positions to new degree programs, but those new degree programs and faculty hires are not happening and the Bioengineering concept seems to have been scrapped fully and the Mechanical and Energy Engineering programs still cannot gain ABET accreditation for the undergrad program (and has finally left some students with degrees that will not be ABET accredited even retroactively) so really can they afford to start a PhD program in that field when they can't even get the undergrad portion under control and accredited so if things go as averages go VLR will be around about 2.75 more years and probably nothing of real significance will happen in that time if things hold true to form.......and if something "major" happens or is planned it will be dumped in the lap of the next guy if things do not go as average then VLR will are around until he is 78+ years old and who knows what will happen or not happen in that time period......if nothing of significance like a capital campaign or a strategic plan with goals that can actually be met comes out then it is probably 5+ years wasted for Denton under VLR right at a very critical time with TRIP and NRUF going on and other universities holding capital campaigns and the state budget starting to stabilize again and other universities making major moves for law, medical, and other professional programs and if VLR does crank out some plan or campaign over the next year will he really stay around to see it start to take shape and will he really be able to get it to take shape or will north Texas again be faced with hiring a president for a "major university" that has the task of coming in and taking over someone elses "four bold goals" or whatever the new plan or campaign will be called.........does anyone really want a presidents position where you are basically running someone elses playbook......I doubt anyone decent wants that task.....but someone looking to collect a check might be up for it......hopefully the organization that VLR was working with when they got VLR will have another retired guy that has decided he might want to "work" a few more years ready to step in

Actually the TAMU program in dallas is just 3rd and 4th year residents not a full medical school their students will still have to do their first two years of school in Bryan or Temple and the merger of Baylor and Scott and White (the Temple facility that has the TAMU medical school) was one of the big reasons for TAMU expanding and another reason was the major Baylor facility expansion in dallas and the prestige that comes with being a teaching hospital and also the legal issues that UTSW had with residents being unsupervised and billing issues that lead to some law suits......Baylor wanted to distance from that and reached out to TAMU

enrollment for the main UH campus in 2012 is 40,747.......so the main UH campus is 4,993 students large than the Denton campus of north Texas http://www.uh.edu/ir/reports/facts-at-a-glance/Fall_2012_Facts.pdf here are the enrollments for the other UH components for 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Houston_System

you have this totally and completely wrong it was Nebraska and Nebraska alone that wanted to keep allowing partial qualifiers and the other 11 members of the Big 12 wanted nothing to do with that anymore so it was 11-1 against allowing partial qualifiers also Nebraska was always 100% in favor of uneven revenue sharing as was TAMU and in fact up to their last years in the Big 12 TAMU was actually a bigger beneficiary of uneven revenue sharing that UT was and when the Big 12 started Nebraska was a bigger beneficiary of uneven revenue than UT and anyone else.....it was only in the later years that NU was not getting more revenue because of uneven sharing NU was always mad at UT over the partial qualifiers, but none of the other Big 8 members of SWC members wanted it any longer

if the market demand was there the hotel would not be asking for a massive tax payer subsidy get a clue and a few nights a year with TMS and Texas OU does not make up for the other 350+ nights a year this subsidized hotel will be taking nights away from others do you think the owners of other hotels are somehow faking their extremely low occupancy rates?.......those low occupancy rates are real and are not the levels that sustain a hotel for the long term and if they get lower they will not even sustain one for the short term and if north Texas generated it's own hotel business why did the other hotel that was there go broke and get knocked down.....and before anyone says "because it was a dump"........why was it allowed to become a dump........because it was not making enough money to support itself and continue to renovate that is why........because it was not a viable market just like this new proposed hotel will not have a viable market which is why it is asking for tax payer money right up front

just for complete laughs please name some of these less than stellar schools

we could call it something like Fry Street Fair or something like that (The Delta Lodge is on fire!) and it could get huge and then Denton culd get mad they are not getting their cut and move it off fry street to the fair grounds and practically kill it and then once north Texas kills the Delta Lodge it could be moved bac to Fry Street with way too small of an area and really screwed up logistics and it would fold for good.....it would be great while it lasted! well that and the citizens from east of the Rubber Gloves area might be tempted to show up...