MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF

May 12, 2016

Just now, UNT90 said:

Your teenage kids may have a different opinion.

Not quit sure why making a public spectacle of myself and embarrassing myself, AD staff, and alumni is necessary in your book. Everyone knows nothing good will come of that. Hell, emailing the President doesn't even matter.

And by your own words, the most important thing is already happening. People just aren't going. Think I'll stick with THAT crowd.

Okay.

May 12, 2016

1 minute ago, TreeFiddy said:

Fedex isn't paying $500 million without any expectation of return. They are willing to commit $500 million in advertising/sponsorship in exchange for Memphis getting in AND Fedex getting at least $500 million in advertising value.

Don't act like the Big12-2 is the only conference with a bunch of hangers-on. Each of the other conferences have their share of laggards. In reality, each conference could easily cut 30% from their ranks and not blink. The Big12-2 could easily do the same.

The hangers on aren't the problem with the Big 12 - the problem is the constant threat of Texas and/or OU leaving.

There is no threat in the SEC of Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, LSU, Auburn, or Georgia leaving.
There is no threat in the Big Ten of Michigan or Ohio State pulling up stakes.
There is no threat in the Pac-12 of USC, UCLA, or Oregon leaving.
There is no threat in the ACC of Miami, Clemson, or North Carolina leaving.

The Big 12 is the only conference with the threat of its bell cows leaving; and, the cost of joining their herd could be half a billion dollars. We aren't there. We never have been, nor will we be any time soon.

May 12, 2016

2 hours ago, UNT90 said:

Several points.

First, decreased attendance will be a theme you see brought up much more often in the fall.

Secondly, the most visible sign of success inside a program is wins and loses. It's great that academics are ok (they haven't always been. We lost scholarships to APR problems when Dodge first got here. The Hattiesburg Hustler was well into his 6th or 7th year at that point), but they are also ok at a host of other universities that aren't terrible at every sport that matters.

You exhibit the exact problem that has put UNT in their current position. Because people in the athletic department are nice to you, you assume they are good at their job when every piece of tangible evidence says otherwise. We should just keep the Hattiesburg Hustler around because he is so nice to you, eh? I mean, screw job performance. And then you wonder why UNT sucks at everything athletic that matters.

When your kids get to be teenagers and can read scoreboards, their interest in UNT will magically fade. That's just life. Be prepared.,

Well, these events are a good opportunity for you to talk to the athletic department people face-to-face and tell them they aren't doing their job. Which stop is closest to you? I'll go just to hear you put your money where your mouth is...or, your money where your computer posting is, as is the modern way.

As for my kids, athletics will not be high on the list of important features of the college they choose.

May 12, 2016

13 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

I've been saying this for awhile. The Big XII is just the SW version of the old Big East. In time, the best parts will get bought off, leaving behind leftovers that cannot keep enough prestige to make it a power league anymore. It will be another version of the AAC or MWC and those three leagues will still stay at the level of play that can be allowed to play the power conferences in OOC and get a spot in a non-playoff BCS bowl. That will completely protect the biggest schools from government intervention or punitive damages because they will say they still allow these schools to compete and its up to those leagues to determine if another school can get admitted into their leagues.

We blew our chances a long time ago. Even if you don't want to blame it completely on allowing the program to fall back down to I-aa in 1983 for 12 years, the fact that we brought our program back up to I-A in 1995 only because we could make more money from the whore games and we kept our budget woefully low, causing us to continually play in our toilet bowl of a stadium was the death knell of the program's chances at FBS legitimacy. From 1995 until 2008, SMU literally sucked ass at football...and we couldn't do one thing to move up above them in the eyes of the sports media or college football fans. It was there for the taking and we blew it, allowing SMU to STILL be able to dictate what conference affiliation we could and couldn't be a part of. If we jump over them, as we should have, the MWC takes us when TCU leaves. Or we move up to the now AAC before they did. Instead, they go into CUSA and block us from ever having any chance of joining a league with teams that people have heard of over the years, keeping us in the dreg of FBS, the SBC, until the Big East calls them to join their league with everyone else that we always wanted to join with in what is know the AAC. Now, we move up to SBC 2.0, and the league just isn't good enough to garner any mention or interest in being like the AAC or MWC anymore.

Yep. Agree 100%. So, therein lies the part about accepting reality.

Think about what is happening right now with the Big 12. Even though it will obviously crater if OU and/or Texas leavers, Memphis is begging to get in to the tune of a $500 million offer by FEDEX to pay the the conference to let the Tigers in.

Let that sink in, folks: $500 million being offered by a corporation on behalf of a University, just for sports.

That is what we are up against. Not just us, every G5 school. It's now an open-bidding process. And, look...face reality, Memphis just had a pretty great year in football, has some basketball history, and still has to try to bribe it's way into the P5 conference most likely to implode!

That is where college athletics is today. I don't care who our athletic director is or was, we don't have a donor, or even a collection of donors, who will shell out $500 million+ for anything.

Go ahead and say the words, half a billion dollars! And, that's just to get your foot in the door. Imagine the cost of trying to keep up once you are in!

It's crazy. It's dysfunctional. It's Big Boy college athletics, 21st Century.

May 12, 2016

4 minutes ago, Aldo said:

You do realize they're still either man or woman?

And I want to end it there so you don't lock up this thread.

Yes. Thanks to D.N.A. we know what they are. But, NCAA will be confronted with it someday like the rest of society. Almost did with Griner at Baylor: https://fitandfeminist.com/2012/04/03/the-misgendering-of-brittney-griner/

As for baseball, as always, if you are going to raise money for it, you are still going to have to find the money for equal female scholarships. Lacrosse, maybe? Donate twice, or make your one donation double what you wanted to make it.

You are fighting more than hope with these things; you are fighting the college athletic gender battle...which it ruled by Title IX. Can't pretend that the athletic department doesn't want baseball; it does. But, it's got to follow the rules.

May 12, 2016

1 minute ago, untjim1995 said:

Can we just try to be like La Tech, Southern Miss, Arkansas State, or ULL? I mean, these guys all win fairly often as lower G5 programs like we are without the violations. Hell, seeing Benford in that picture just makes me want to have a basketball program that can compete year-in and year-out with freaking UTA...and realizing we can't even get over that curb-level hurdle with this guy, who gets a 5th year to spare everyone else to death...

Agree with most of that...except that ULL recently was caught messing with ACT scores for football players: http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/news/ncaa-violations-forces-louisiana-lafayette-vacate-22-games-assistant-coach-falsified-act-scores/1wewxph66vfhe14xwjk0y6g9yf

As far as Benford...it's easy to blame the school for not firing him and just taking the monetary loss. However, we're not a school that has the type of donors who like to throw money that way.

Not that we don't have some rich alumni. It's just that they don't pay enough attention to the athletic department to throw their hard-earned money into buying out contracts. Thinking of guys like Sam Moon. The guy does many good charitable things with his money. Buying out basketball coaches' contracts isn't high on the list of guys like that.

So...just...we live with it until we get rich donors who care more about college athletics than charities.

May 12, 2016

28 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Right. Plus, doesn't baseball only allow 11.5 scholarships or something like that? It's common for players to have partial scholarships for baseball. Title IX compliance is all about scholarship availability between the sexes, and UNT is at or close to a 1:1 ratio, which is way above the threshold. There are more sports played by women at UNT than there are mens (Soccer, Volleyball, Tennis, Swimming/diving VS Football).

There are more women's sports at almost every school now; at least the ones with football. Football takes up the lion's share of men's scholarships.

Yes, baseball is 11.5, leaving most baseballers paying their own way for most of their schooling.

May 12, 2016

Plano event was fun, as usual; but, there didn't seem to be as many people there as in the past. That was disappointing.

UNT staff, despite all of the bitching here, was as helpful and friendly as ever. I always leave these thing wondering how anyone can complain about the people in the athletic department.

And, yes, I know we've been losing at the big three for quite sometime. But, I always go back to how clean the program is run, and how many good people work in the athletic department.

I want us to win as badly as the next alum or fan. But, would I trade it for the reputation of hiding a child molester like Penn State? To have players who break women's faces on the roster like Oklahoma? To be constantly caught up in recruiting violations like virtually every SEC school not named Vanderbilt?

You can say losing comes from the top and blame Rick Villarreal, and that's fine. I totally understand. But, the off the field stuff also must come from the top down, then. You can't argue that this athletic department is embarrassing either the school or its alumni from either a conduct or academic standpoint.

For the sake of Rick and everyone in the athletic department, I truly hope the "big three" programs can turn it around. There are many good people in the athletic department who work hard and love North Texas. Cannot rail against them.

Thank you, again, for the sixth year in a row, for giving my family a fun night at the Coaches' Caravan event. Amazing to think my kids have now basically grown up going to these things. Hopefully it is creating a bond, in their minds, to UNT.

May 12, 2016

As far as Title IX, begin by counting the scholies for each sex - men and women. There are no transsex sports yet. When there are, Title IX will have to be revised.

May 11, 2016

5 hours ago, ValleyBoy said:

Remember as of July 1, Coastal Carolina is a member of the Sun Belt conference.

Ugh. Left out UAB and Coastal. Yuck. See what I mean? Reality is, these are just empty faces to the rest of the college football world. UAB? Who cares. Coastal Carolina? Who cares? Stick the Carolina school in the North bracket, UAB in the South.

I think La Tech and, possibly, Rice can go AAC, replacing Houston and Cincinnati if those two are taken by the Big 12...which will eventually lose OU and Texas and just be another Big East. I also think Kansas, because of basketball and academics, is an attractive addition to the Big Ten or ACC.

So, honestly, someone answer me this: when OU and Texas leave the Big 12, why wouldn't there be a push for a new Southwest Conference-type conference?

Possibly future Big 12, minus OU, KU, and UT :
Baylor
Cincinnati
Houston
Iowa State
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
TCU
Texas Tech
West Virginia

It just doesn't look good for the Big 12 if OU and Texas bolt, as well as Kansas. It's why I'm in the "There will someday only be the Big 4" crowd: ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC.

To get back to 10, I think OU/KU/UT-less Big 12 would invite Rice. Either way, you are looking at a terrible hodge podge of former SWC and Big 8 schools, plus the mongrels no one really wants among the Big Boys...looking at you, West Virginia and Cincy.

Texas will call the dance, OU will follow along; Kansas is awfully quiet, but has the most chips on the table behind the 'Horns and Sooners.

May 10, 2016

Two will go to the Big 12; although, it may still implode.

It doesn't matter. From budgets, to TV deals, etc. it is clear that the AAC and MWC may survive to compete for the sliver of a hope to be somehow eligible for the College Football Playoff...it will never happen, but they will be the closest to touching it of the G5s.

So, what does everyone else do? The answer is: face reality.

We are not going to get a good TV deal.
We are probably not going to have all the bowl contracts re-upped.

Sun Belt, C-USA, and MAC need to sack up and admit reality. Actually, I think MAC already has. Although not as respected as the MWC or AAC, they've had less moving parts coming and going in the past. They're probably fine how they are.

The schools of the Sun Belt and C-USA simply need to divide up into two conferences that make the most sense regionally, and move on.

Western Based Leftovers Conference
Arkansas State
Louisiana
Louisiana Tech (if they don't go to AAC)
North Texas
Rice
Southern Miss
Texas State
ULM
UTEP
UTSA

Eastern Based Leftovers Conference
North
Appalachian State
Charlotte
Marshall
Middle Tennessee
Old Dominion
Western Kentucky

South
FIU
FAU
Georgia Southern
Georgia State
South Alabama
Troy

I haven't included New Mexico State. I'm sorry for that. I think their fate might mirror Idaho's. Stick them in the Western Based Leftovers if you feel like it; I don't.

No matter how you slice it, the remaining G5 conferences are simply the birds who are not the early birds who got the worms. I don't know what to call them. The late birds, I guess.

We lose.

By the way, I think if any school is bailed out in a miracle, it will be Rice, and solely based on academic reputation.

May 10, 2016

18 hours ago, SilverEagle said:

Just FYI, claims are not rare because incidences are rare. Incidences (secret or public) are (percentage wise) pretty much the same as they've always been. It's just that people were just not comfortable discussing the subject, and that was especially so in 1976.

Freud is accused of coming up with lots of weird theory's about childhood sexuality based on his years of therapy with middle class women. Many/most of whom told him about childhood molestation at the hands of their fathers. This was so shocking and unexpected that, rather than write up a paper to present to his peers that said "Damn, there's a lot of little girls getting molested by their fathers", he worked on the aforementioned strange theory's based on childhood fantasies. Both the professional community and society was not ready for this revelation. And while, as a society, we've come a long way, most people are still "Cleopatras" when it comes to the subject.

And IMHO, that has kept the claims down.

Agree. And, I think one of the main problems with these things is lack of witnesses, so it becomes bogged down in "he said/she said"-type of claims.

Except. I've gotta tell ya, modern day social media has made it much easier to figure out who said what to whom.

May 10, 2016

I don't think OU and Texas are intertwined. I think Texas calls the dance on the Big 12. Oklahoma may wish it did. But, in the end, it's been Texas' call on almost all of it.

Texas can have it's pick of conferences, if it decides to move. Oklahoma should, but was turned down by the Pac-12 because they insisted Oklahoma State come with them - for political reasons in-state, of course.

Texas doesn't have the political albatross that Oklahoma does in Oklahoma State.

No matter what happens, the Big 12 is a highly dysfunctional conference.

May 9, 2016

12 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

It really is. If gaining no new members causes OU and KU to jump ship, UT can easily go independent, which they may do just to keep the LHN. If UT does go independent, Tech will be just as screwed as Baylor and TCU are. Those three schools will be future members of the MWC or AAC.

UT could easily join another conference and play its other sports there, such as the AAC. Its not scheduling would be hard for the to setup--they can easily set up annual games with OU in Dallas, Baylor, TCU, and Tech, then sprinkle in ongoing series with ND and BYU. Then play three bought G5/FCS games, as well as three other P5 games each year and you will see them having 7-8 home games every year.

Could be. UT has flirted with the ACC and Pac-12 before. Sticking point back then was the Longhorn Network. LNH has been a money loser, so things may now change.

Always considered KU to be a good fit with the Big Ten due to academics and basketball. Makes as much, if not more, sense as Nebraska being there.

OU is a definite puzzle. After the Pac-12 rejected Texas in 2011, Oklahoma tried to get in on their own and were rejected. They then declined to listen to overtures from the SEC, who then took Missouri instead...which, I always thought was a weird fit.

OU has been rumored everywhere. Would they try to cobble/keep together a conference under the Big 12 banner if Texas leaves?

Whatever happens, Big 12 is definitely the new Big East.

May 9, 2016

Good, extensive report on Sexual Abuse and Molestation coverage and laws/legal opinions surrounding their claims, from 2010 and by MunichRe:
https://www.munichre.com/site/mram/get/documents_E1235435297/mram/assetpool.mr_america/PDFs/3_Publications/sexual_misconduct_claims.pdf

May 9, 2016

2 hours ago, SilverEagle said:

Hmmm, interesting. So risk could be just anything? I would have thought that any insurer would include a clause excluding criminal behavior.

Sexual Abuse and Molestation coverage is common in packages for educational institutions and churches. Here's The Hartford's brochure regarding their coverage for such:

http://www.thehartford.com/sites/thehartford/files/LLSAM-brochure_.pdf

Again, because the claims are rare, insurers include it as part of packages for educational institutions and some churches. It is not available as a stand alone insurance product.

May 9, 2016

On 5/6/2016 at 10:57 AM, SilverEagle said:

First of all, how do you write an insurance policy that anticipates coverage/compensation for anticipated sex crimes.

Just because an insurance policy is written, doesn't mean the insurer anticipates something. It's a risk mechanism.

As far as a liability policy, such as one described for this type of event, you are trading premium dollars for defense against allegations. Whether the allegations are true or not make no difference, you are paying for defense.

(And, insurers write these policies because accusations are rare. Therefore, they make a lot of money writing the policies. Warren Buffet has made most of his money with his reinsurers.)

Here, Penn State's problem appears to be that they made payments to victims then tried to get the insurer to pay. The vast majority of insurance policies require that the insurer be notified of claims and/or incidents which might lead to clams. Doing so would possibly trigger defense and/or, in the case of a judgment or settlement coverage.

If Joe Pa knew, then, and didn't report, defense and coverage could both be denied by the insurer.

The vast majority of policies also require that the insurer be involved - if not, lead - the investigation into the accusations. If the school, then, made payments based on investigations that excluded insurer participation, the insurer would likely deny coverage.

Finally, my guess is the insurer's policies from that era were in line with pre-asbestos liability policies. Therefore, those policies could be stacked, leaving the insurers with little ground to invoke its limits.

So, yes, the insurers will fight Penn State.

May 6, 2016

11 hours ago, KingDL1 said:

Really this all stems from this;

The report stems from a single line in a court order on a related insurance coverage case, which states, one of Penn State’s insurers has claimed “in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky.”

Can you people read? Can someone explain to me what allegedly means? Because that word must have changed from what I was taught, the key part was that it indicated absolutely no proof. So the meaning of allegedly must have mean something completely new these days.

Joe is dead and can't defend himself, stuff like this is sad. Joe is not the bad guy, it is Sandusky that needs to burn.

By the way I have no real love of Joe but this kind of bad accusations are irresponsible and there seems to be a trend for tearing down legends and find way to deflect for others benefit . A dead guy can't defend himself very well. As if enough smoke is fabricated there must be fire. At the end of the day I really don't care what happened at Penn State 40 years ago.

Insurers do tend to hold onto those claim files, don't they?

Sorry, no sympathy for dead or living Joe Pa. No way he didn't know what was going on.

May 6, 2016

Better than the Belt, even though it has become Belt 2.0 and Belt has become Southland 2.0.

New TV contract will not be great. As bowl contracts expire, you have to wonder how many will be renewed.

Other thought: ESPN and FOX losing money, Hulu-type going into sports...is there a possibility of being able to strike deals with both? My guess is, no, in that ESPN/FOX will deny reality for as along as possible - as all dying/faltering corporate giants do when other entities begin to outflank them and killing them with death by a thousand cuts - and, thus, fight dual contracts.

May 6, 2016

10 hours ago, 97and03 said:

I think your reasoning is part of why and mine is also a reason. There are few absolutes, right?

Just not sure how many more TFLF accounts we need.

Or, maybe you can just accept that some people on the planet might have a different point of view than you, and kind of - I don't know - deal with it?

Sounds like you want Harry to turn gomeangreen.com into your personal "safe space" a la the whiny college students these days.

16 hours ago, UNT90 said:

Sounds like your problem more than Harry's.

Guess what. UNT athletics is in a hopeless state. The most hopeless state it's ever been in. And UNT is doing nothing to change it. Not Pres. Smatresk, not the BOR, not the 17.

Thats why traffic is down. Even if that's not what you want to hear.

Or, as someone noted earlier about the member of the NT Illuminati whose posts are down, there is a trend to post less this time of year with spring ball over and school out. Not much happening, not much to comment upon...

...hence, the revival of the helmet and jersey threads.

May 5, 2016

56 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

This NSA big brother crap is freaking me out! Are you really watching that closely? Oh yea I guess you are!

Slow day on Lake Granbury.

May 5, 2016

This guy Adrian Peterson had at least one in college and still found time to, you know, hit the voluntary workouts:
http://www.tmz.com/2013/10/16/adrian-peterson-4th-baby-mama-5th-baby-dancer-gentlemens-club/

This guy Leonard Fournette made a run at the Heisman...with a daughter:
http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=210425295

DeVante Parker: http://heavy.com/sports/2015/04/devante-parker-louisville-nfl-draft-dolphins-height-dad-daughter/

Leonard Williams: http://heavy.com/sports/2015/04/leonard-williams-usc-university-southern-california-nfl-height-jaguars-raiders-daughter-mom-family/

Ed Stinson: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2014/profiles/ed-stinson?id=2543688

Keith McGill: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2014/profiles/keith-mcgill?id=2543762

Donte Moncrief: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/18/colts-donte-moncrief-entered-the-draft-to-support-his-family/

Bobby Wagner: http://blog.seattlepi.com/football/2012/04/27/seahawks-select-lb-bobby-wagner-in-second-round-of-nfl-draft/

The list of NFL players alone who had kids in high school or college would be too long to list, forget about just college players. Some who have kids before or while in college seem to be able to put in the work to the degree that they even make it to the League.

So, find me another excuse for Dajon not going to workouts, film study, and getting around to cracking the playbook.

May 5, 2016

31 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

Do you have a quote from Sir Calvin Wallace anywhere that he was giving up football? No, you don't, you just think Vito saying "decided not to return for his final year of eligibility" equates to giving up football.

Whether Dajon is playing football or not, the man is in college bettering himself. He never said anything bad about this program. He is a father and is going to make the most of his future. I never saw where he skipped film room, weight room, or didn't study the playbook. I do recall him coming into fall camp in 2014 without having thrown over the summer break so he had shoulder fatigue. So yea, he didn't do his not-so-"voluntary" workouts. That and the birth of his child are why he didn't suit up for the '14 UT game. It kind of amazes me that he was so opposed to putting in the work since he very nearly beat out Heart of Dallas Bowl MVP Derek Thompson for the starting job in 2013 as a true freshman.

Just letting whoever know if im not up for something this semester during Spring Ball we goin have a problem
— Black Jimmie Johnson (@rosecity_Don) December 30, 2015

Enjoy losing at South Alabama. At least there, he won't be able to pull the "I'm not playing, surprise I am playing" on them.

As to Dajon...keep harboring your Dajon was better than Thompson fantasy. And, also the fantasy that he has been the only college football player to ever father children. Newsflash - many have them while still in high school.

He didn't focus on what it takes to be a successful college quarterback; even those with children somehow manage: ever hear of a Brigham Young University?

May 5, 2016

Are you saying that one of the 17 was walking among you all, and you didn't know it? And, now you think you might know it, but aren't sure?

How do we know you are not Oliver Stone? You have many suspicions and theories and whatnot regarding the NT Illuminati.

May 5, 2016

Yes, believe it or not when someone turns their back on the school I graduated from, I have some qualms with their motives. With Eli Howard, you're really stretching, though. He never played; SCW did play and likely would have started. Howard also didn't say he was giving up football, then resurface at Texas Tech.

As for Dajon...still not on Texas A&M-Commerce's roster. So: University of Sitting at Home on the Couch in Dallas versus University of Sitting at Home on the Couch in Commerce. Not much a different other than the scenery outside the front door.

It makes no difference to me. Dajon didn't want to put in the work here; and, apparently, doesn't want to put in the work at a D-II either. That's fine. You'd be hard pressed to find a coach at any level that puts up with their quarterbacks skipping the weight room, film room, and not studying the playbook. That is a surprise to no one who knows anything about college football.

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

GoMeanGreen.com

Posts posted by MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF

Important Information