meangreenJW

Has to be previous week. We were sub 300 last year. In the 320s if I recall.

Specifically which schools are you comparing? I know we are smaller than Houston and SMU but when I've glanced we are comparable to other CUSA schools.

I don't get the need by some to pile on past coaches and administrators. Were they perfect? No. Were they worthless and accomplish nothing? No. RV and co made advancements during his tenure. Can anyone deny that? Was it time for a change? Yes. I don't think anyone can deny that. I think WB and his team are doing a great job. But they inherited a better situation than RV did and it's better in part because of RV. I'm not an RV friend or apologist. But realistically, he gave 15 years to my school. I have no doubt he tried his best and I can be mature enough to give him credit for his accomplishments. The rest of this debate doesn't help NT at all. Would someone else have accomplished more the last 15 years. Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. As for the elite donors that "kept RV in place," I have to believe their love of NT outweighed anything to do with RV. So maybe you feel RV was awful and had them duped. Maybe you feel RV did great and gets a bad rap. Either way, criticizing those donors makes little sense because they obviously care about NT. As evidenced by the fact, I think everyone of them is still involved.

Agree. Texas Tech might be different because it probably will pay $3 million. But I don't think it is a no brainer. No way he does KU IMO. Stay where you know you can win until you can get another job where you know you can win. The only difference is if all the sudden you can make $2 million more per year and it's guaranteed for 5 years, you have to think about it. $10 million is a lot of cheese to walk away from.

Just so we are clear for those being critical, if a job was open that would pay anywhere form 200%-350% more than you currently make, you wouldn't want to talk about it? Honestly, I'd question a coach who didn't want to discuss it. That doesn't mean he'd take it. Doesn't mean a coach wouldn't use it for leverage to get more money from UNT. Being critical of a Coach for looking at a job universally held as a top 10-15 football job at a school with a top 10 budget makes no sense. SL takes Washington State or GM takes Rutgers, I'm pissed. SL takes Tennessee or GM takes Arizona State, I'm going to say good for them. Next man up. Despite a batshit crazy fan base, UT-Knox is still a top 10 FB job in most people's eyes. His agents should have been pushing him or he should fire his agents.

Damnit Ben, I never thought I'd give you the ole plus 1. But you gonna get this it this time. Winning unites.

I can't even put into words what this does for my soul. GMG

I think the term "applying" is off base here. All of the guys mentioned in that paragraph are represented by Russ Campbell. My guess is Russ sent a list of resumes and says these are guys that would be good for the job. Probably had to ask Littrell before doing that but that's different than applying are desperately sending information like Wilson. In fact, the AD might have told agents send me guys who you'd recommend.

Awesome. Upgrades continue! Thanks for sharing

The AD is known as a clown. Wants to hire his buddy who's an assistant at Texas Tech which will be an epic fail. AD and President are both fools. It's a surefire bet this will crash and burn on them.

Dilly Dilly

I don't believe this is gaining traction at all. That being said, logically it makes some sense. Logic has never applied to athletics. Ego drives the train. No way CUSA schools who were formerly Sunbelt will merge with the Sunbelt. Just won't happen IMO. I may have believed it more a possibility before I saw how mad many on this board were that we were playing an SBC school in the bowl game. That was eye opening to me.

I think this is correct. It was definitely darkened last year. Perhaps they did it during the Benford era to blend out empty seats!

I think it's three things. 1) The biggest factor is lack of success. The numbers in the new book are "annual fund donations" and don't include capital gifts (facilities, etc.). The majority of annual funds gifts (MGSF formerly MGC) will be required commitment for seats and parking. Lack of success = lack of tickets sold = low demand for premium seats and parking and thus the required donations. 2) Low prices - While there was a lot of chirping on some of the donation changes, it's a double whammy when you sell less tickets and are at the bottom in donations required for those tickets. 3) Lack of a strategy - I've received, seen, heard, etc. more about the MGC/MGSF this year than all years combined. Tweets, facebook posts, emails, on field presentations, etc. I don't recall seeing many (any) before this year. Constantly preaching that MGSF supports student-athletes combined with success will build the base. There are numerous other factors (the mentioned lack of pride, institutional culture, etc) but in my opinion these factors are the primary contributors. What I appreciate is the new regime doesn't hide from the numbers. I felt like RV hid how low they were. This group seems to put it out there at every opportunity. It's a not so subtle step the heck up message.

Agree

Highly like prices are set by CBI and consistent throughout the tournament.

I think Smatresk is being extended too or at least that was referenced in the DRC today. I'm mixed on this. I don't like the clause because if we lose any one of the pieces, it makes it easier for others to leave. But I love the significance of the coaches, AD and President loving working together. We've never had that. I don't think it gives WB any more advantage than Smatty or coaches. They seem to be in this together. The University negotiates the contract based upon their templates. I know the Prez, AD, play roles but so do the BOR, general counsel office and chancellor. In a contact of that magnitude, lots of cooks in the kitchen.

To me this is about perception. The MWC is only negligibly better if at all. But I think it's perceived as the #2 conference in the Group of 5. TCU basically took every opportunity to "upgrade" whether it made sense geographically or not. Honestly, I'd rather play the CUSA teams. I think as we become more competitive we'd build better rivalries, travel better, etc. But I think if given the opportunity to go to the MWC, we should go purely because it's regarded as a better conference nationally.

One thing I didn't know until I read Vito's article is we keep all revenue. I doubt we get anywhere near $40k coming in but if we sell a few tickets and concession, I'd think we be between $10-$20k. Get a few donors to chip in and you can make it work. After this round, if you host Vito's article said there isn't a fee. You send actual ticket revenue back to CBI.

National nightmare is over. New flag was up when I drove by today. Some of you guys should grab a beer, relax and appreciate a flag that weathers well. LOL.

While both pay typical "production costs" ESPN charges $1,500 on top of that for ESPN3. Not sure what ESPN+ will be. I only know that because Wren said in an interview last year the school paid more money to put the football games up on ESPN 3 instead of CUSA.tv. From a user standpoint, I like ESPN 3. I typically use the Watch ESPN 3 app on my apple TV even for the linear broadcasts so it would be a one stop shop rather than a mixture. Best guess SBC will get $200-250 after expenses. CUSA will get about $400k. CUSA wins on revenue, SBC wins on reach (ESPN has more viewers than CBSSN). Sadly, neither is too much to get excited about.

Classy. Could you stop by the UTSA board and teach them a little?

Whoever isn't running the Midco sports spot during this timeout should be fired. I'm a big Midco Sports show fan.

Maybe we could do like Apogee build a little smaller but perhaps expandable. I'm not an architect and have no damn idea how but...

Kelly Stewart about to unite this board. She's the answer we've needed for so long!