Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


meangreenJW last won the day on June 14 2018

meangreenJW had the most liked content!

Community Reputation


About meangreenJW

  • Rank
    Platinum Eagle

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Found more info on the NCAA financial reporting at this site using a google search. Pretty interesting. https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/finance/2019NCAAFIN_AUP-FRS-FAQs.pdf Basically, donations are only counted if they are spent that fiscal year so I assume the money received for the indoor, etc. won't be recorded until it is actually spent. I'm also assuming it isn't "received" by the athletic department until it is budgeted and spent. Until then it probably belongs to the UNT Foundation or some University holding fund. Q: Net fund raising revenues are not spent for current year athletic expenses and are retained for future years. When do you record the revenue? A: Funds received by the athletic department should be recorded in the year they are received and used by the athletic department. Do not report contributions to be used in other reporting years. Q: Contributions - Are premium seating contributions to be reported as sport specific or general contributions? Is there any reason for premium seating revenue to be separated for institutional comparison purposes? A: The face value of the ticket should be reported to Ticket Sales category (Category 1), while any premium amounts over the face value should be reported to Contributions (Category 8 (to the specific sport in both categories if possible). Q: Please clarify the issues surrounding pledges, contributions, and routing of such through a foundation. A: Pledges (a promise to contribute money or assets) are not to be reported into the system. Only when contributions are actually received in the form of cash or assets should they be reported in the year they were received and spent. If a contribution (in whole or in part) is made to a foundation specifically for athletics, then the portion allocated to athletics should be reported as contribution revenue in the year it was received and used. Do not report: Contributions to be used in other reporting years. If, however, a general contribution has been made to a foundation without knowing how much will be allocated to athletics, then no reporting as contribution revenue should be made until that determination is made. Basically, there should be transparency between any foundation revenue and expense that is athletically related. If it is athletically related, it should also be reported and included with revenues and expenses reported on behalf of the athletics department
  2. I seem to recall something the AD put out saying MGSF increased by over 30% last year with a 5 year goal of 100% increase. We'd pass 2-3 schools but still not enough. But if we keep winning at the current clip, it will grow exponentially. FY 2017 would have been 16-17 season. That was the season following the 5 years where we had 1 winning season in football, men's and women's basketball combined. No doubt that would have been our worst year.
  3. The way I read it, it would have been 30% of the previous base for approximately 3 years with no extension. I don't have the brain power to do all the math...but I ballpark it a little less than $1 million. This deal is 30% of the base which is larger plus a year longer at 4 years. I ballpark that at $1.6 million. So if Littrell left after this season we'll receive about $600k more. We would have paid him $150k more in base for 1 year and $100k more in other comp. So if I'm right we'll be about $350k better off under this deal. The previous deal started at 40% and dropped each year by 10%. Seems like this just takes the average. But there's no doubt this deal was done when SL was involved at K-State so he'd have had more leverage. It might only be coming out now but undoubtedly was done when all the rumors were circulating.
  4. Agree with this. The ADs/Presidents vote on location. Grant and Jalie both said repeatedly at their radio show the Star was good for UNT. Of course Marshall wouldn't like it, it's a long ways away for them. I suppose UAB and UTEP don't either because they've hosted in the past. But if a majority of schools weren't for it, it wouldn't be there. I'm going to ask Grant or Jalie when I see them. I think this is more D'Antoni wining than truth. I have no idea what they're thinking on the pod schedules but if you switch scheduling models after one year, you screw a bunch of teams in terms of home/away. Almost everyone does two year schedules (or increments of two) so they get a home/away cycle in. I sit behind D'Antoni's bench two years ago, the man is a fool. Somehow wins games but his players couldn't be less engaged in what he is saying.
  5. I'm not sure how reliable that blogger and obviously it isn't big money. But this is CUSA's worst package what they refer to as tier III. So in comparison the Big 12 doesn't have a tier III deal. Texas does in the LHN but the other schools don't (although they are working on one). I believe that is pretty much what BeIn was paying so it much better broadcast quality and market penetration for similar money and the NFLN didn't take the tier III basketball games so maybe those can be shopped. I think every single non power 5 conference would take this deal for their Tier III rights. Even the AAC because you get Saturday games on a huge linear network in the afternoon. No non power 5 has that. The most unfortnate part of this deal is CUSA just signed over Tier I and Tier II rights for new deals. I can't remember the length of those but the best CUSA games won't be on NFL Network. Best case scenario would have been NFL Network deal with Tier I. I'm not a Judy fan. But I have zero complaints on this deal.
  6. I get your sarcasm. I don't think this diminishes D-Day anymore than it would have diminished Christmas, Veterans Day, etc. etc.. Obviously 6/6 was chosen for a different reason. 5 years ago, we had no players worthy of pushing for such an award and weren't progressive enough to push them if we did. I'm deeply patriotic but this didn't bother me in the slightest and am kind of surprised it did bother others.
  7. This whole debate has been had and at the end of the day, it doesn't do a damn thing to move UNT forward. Here' s my assessment which I think is fair (of course I would, LOL). RV did his best. I think anyone that knows him knows he worked hard and took the job seriously. RV recently overcame a heart attacked suffered at a fairly young age. I would almost guarantee the stress of the years of being an AD contributed. Debating RV's legacy and merits as an AD really don't serve much purpose. The reality is the stadium was completed under his watch, the vision and start of the athletic campus came under his watch, etc. Without those things, we wouldn't be experiencing the success we are today. WB seemingly has done a really good job since taking over. His hires (administrative and coaching) seem to be exactly what was needed. Most importantly, it seems we got rid of some of the dead weight we had hanging around. I think most of us recognize the department has taken significant steps, even RV's strongest supporters. I don't know about the whole big donor conversation. I will say this, we announced the two largest gifts and if I recall correctly doubled the previous fundraising record in a year so that's impressive. So if nothing else, we seem to be getting more out of those same donors. And guys like WagTag have stepped up significantly as well. I would call him a big donor and I don't remember him being one of the "17" maybe he was. I think I remember the overall donor number growing by 30% or something like that as well. Both of these things are true. 1)RV made contributions and improvements that allow the success we are having today. 2)WB and his team have continued on those and taken to a whole new level. Lastly, UNT needs every damn donor. Shaming the biggest donors in history on this board seems shortsighted. Can we just stop this whole debate of the RV legacy? Okay, I know the answer is no.
  8. Just came across another article on Memphis candidates. Seems like they know it would be hard to get WB away from here. https://dailymemphian.com/article/5133/Potential-candidates-on-radar-to-replace-Tom-Bowen-as-U-of-M-Athletic-Director unlikely but familiar faces: Wren Baker - North Texas - Athletic Director One of the top young athletic director’s in the nation, Baker is in a similar situation as Alnutt. He has a solid job with the potential to jump to a Power Five opening in the future. Many in Memphis hold him in a high esteem after he worked under Bowen, but it seems unlikely he ends up involved with the open job.
  9. Based on everything Wren says, I don't see him leaving for Memphis. I did a quick twitter search and perused their board. His name is prevalent. But Smatresk seems to support Baker in every way. Maybe, it's wishful thinking but I don't think he leaves for anything less than Power 5.
  10. Understand but midweek games in softball and baseball (even more so) are often undpredictable. The "better" team often doesnt throw their #1 pitch much if at all because they have a huge conference series looming. Often the lesser conference team plays all out to pull the upset. This how we beat Baylor a couple times under Kee.
  11. Correct. A conference's Board of Directors is the Presidents. They make the call. And it's almost impossible for a commissioner to get fired (google Larry Scott Pac 12 and you'll see he's pretty much despised by the ADs).
  12. Baseball and softball losses are weighted way differently. People don't take them into account near as much because people's #1 pitchers are way better. Hope is 6-1 for instance, the rest of our staff is 3-3. Probably not an exact science but in baseball/softball I think more credit is given for quality wins than a bad loss because of that.
  13. Yeah, I did miss Simmons which was an error. Draper was a walk-on, not a recruit so not sure how much that really counts. So we have 6 guys averaging double figures. Two of them were from Benford era. So in year #2 for McCasland, 37% of offensive production come from Benford recruits. My point remains anyone who says Mac is "winning with Benford players" and his own players aren't good enough is being asinine. Sure, some recruits haven't panned out but this damn sure wasn't plug in play.
  14. Huh? Draper and Wooldridge are LITERALLY the only Benford recruits on the team. Some of you guys don't seem to know how the scholarships work. Alcindor is redshirting. He only played against non D1s. Tikhonenko is injured. He only played in 8 games and will likely get a medical redshirt. Wise is redshirting too. None of this was an issue and we scored fine until injuries mounted up. It does seem they missed on Tope. We just don't get much out of him. And I question the decision to put DJ on a scholly. It's a feel good story but DJ just isn't athletic enough to be counted on. But redshirting the guys he has redshirting is a great sign to me. It says Grant is building a program. If he wanted to win and get out of here, he'd burn the redshirt. But he hasn't. Does everyone griping realize we were missing two starters (Duffy and Ryan) and our 6th man (Simmons). We played with 6 guys, one of which was DJ. And I've never seen a player struggle post injury like Rose has. That couldn't have been predicted. We should end the year with a top 120 RPI, maybe top 100 following last year's 190 rpi. Benford never finished above 275 and finished below 300 multiple times. If you look at what Kelvin Sampson has done at Houston GMac has exceeded his 1st two years. Kelvin was 13-19 (4-14) in year #1 and 22-10 (12-6) in year #2. In my opinion, Grant is doing a really, really good job.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.