Jump to content

UNT Light the Tower Collective Meeting


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, letsgiveacheer said:

I am usually reluctant to criticize things like this, but that is a poorly written announcement.  If we are going to competeat with other universities, we need to do more better.

I think it is most better.

  • Upvote 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NT80 said:

 

"prioririty"?  Someone should have proof-read their invitation before sending it out.

Also, I disagree that "This (NIL) is by far today's biggest prioririty(sp) in attracting and retaining athletic talent..."

The biggest priority for these mega-donors should be finding a quality Head Football Coach that can attract and evaluate talent and properly utilize it on the field.  UNT has that in basketball with Grant McCasland.  

 

The NIL will have a huge impact on the quality of the next coach. The NIL really is more important than any other factors concerning college football.

  • Upvote 2
  • Skeptical Eagle 2
  • Puking Eagle 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wag Tag said:

The NIL will have a huge impact on the quality of the next coach. The NIL really is more important than any other factors concerning college football.

Good point.  If you do not have a good NIL, why would a good coach want to come here.

  • Upvote 2
  • RV 1
  • Skeptical Eagle 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Again, this Collective has nothing to do with the University itself.   This is not a Wren Baker hire.

This is a group of large-monied donors who CHOSE Rick to lead the effort.   

What would you do?  Have Wren/Neal tell those donors, "No, not him"?

Other Universities say this and we all yell "Bull shit". This is another problem along the lines of the people who thought NIL would not be pay-for-play. The University, just like others, has a backdoor connection to this. 

 

10 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

RV was the puppy dog that those large donors led around.

As evidence in the fact that we still have our current HC - It seems winning on the scoreboard is not a top priority for our "big money" people

  • Upvote 2
  • Sad 1
  • Eye Roll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

The NIL will have a huge impact on the quality of the next coach. The NIL really is more important than any other factors concerning college football.

No. Teams are not moving up the food chain in Conference realignment because of NIL or Money their school or alums have.   

A program's value is today deemed by media importance (attendance, TV games and viewers); also considered are facilities, program winning history, media market, # alumni, AAU status, and enrollment size.  NT wasn't invited to the AAC for it's NIL.  Smut won't be invited to the BIG12 for it's NIL.  UCLA and USC were not invited to the BIG10 for their NIL...etc.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jonnyeagle said:

Good point.  If you do not have a good NIL, why would a good coach want to come here.

Only 131 FBS Head Coaching jobs available in America might be a good reason.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NT80 said:

No. Teams are not moving up the food chain in Conference realignment because of NIL or Money their school or alums have.   

A program's value is today deemed by media importance (attendance, TV games and viewers); also considered are facilities, program winning history, media market, # alumni, AAU status, and enrollment size.  NT wasn't invited to the AAC for it's NIL.  Smut won't be invited to the BIG12 for it's NIL.  UCLA and USC were not invited to the BIG10 for their NIL...etc.

The above is history. Are you going to play in Lubbock for $2500 a month or Dallas for $3,000! SMU ‘s product on the field will improve dramatically. With a big step up in quality on the field and keeping local talent home they will start to see a pick ups n fan support and interest. 

  • Upvote 5
  • Eye Roll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

The above is history. Are you going to play in Lubbock for $2500 a month or Dallas for $3,000! SMU ‘s product on the field will improve dramatically. With a big step up in quality on the field and keeping local talent home they will start to see a pick ups n fan support and interest. 

Stop dreaming.  They were ranked last season and had no fans.  Dallas ignores them like you should.

  • Upvote 5
  • Haha 1
  • Eye Roll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NT80 said:

Stop dreaming.  They were ranked last season and had no fans.  Dallas ignores them like you should.

It’s going to be hard to ignore them when they buy the best transfers every year and start winning conference championships. If they combine winning with their massive bank account, the Big 12, PAC 12, ACC won’t care how small their fanbase is. 

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

The vote failed on the student fee, which was essential to getting the stadium built.  A poster on this board worked tirelessly to help get it pushed through.  I see this more of a victory for him and not so much RV.

Some others are correct in that RV did make do with what he could with little support from the university.  He did purchase the Liberty Christian property which started the development of the Eagle Point athletic area and Apogee was built, along with the AC and Victory Hall, under his watch.  

It is what it is, but considering how he left, I just think this looks bad, IMHO.

Lifer you are confusing two votes. The first was 2002 and it failed but we passed it in the Student Government at a lower rate. The first vote had a lot of pushback from students in part because a group of alumni were pushing it and students didn’t appreciate it (I think there were table top ads in dorm cafeterias if my memory is correct). 
The second vote passed, in my opinion bc the AD kept a lower profile and didn’t try to ran it down the students’ throats. 
Just one old man’s memory of it. I was only involved in 2002 so can’t speak first hand about the second one. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 97and03 said:

Lifer you are confusing two votes. The first was 2002 and it failed but we passed it in the Student Government at a lower rate. The first vote had a lot of pushback from students in part because a group of alumni were pushing it and students didn’t appreciate it (I think there were table top ads in dorm cafeterias if my memory is correct). 
The second vote passed, in my opinion bc the AD kept a lower profile and didn’t try to ran it down the students’ throats. 
Just one old man’s memory of it. I was only involved in 2002 so can’t speak first hand about the second one. 

I was told that Dr. Pohl asked/required RV to take a back seat on the second vote and lay low.

  • Upvote 3
  • Haha 1
  • Eye Roll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 97and03 said:

Lifer you are confusing two votes. The first was 2002 and it failed but we passed it in the Student Government at a lower rate. The first vote had a lot of pushback from students in part because a group of alumni were pushing it and students didn’t appreciate it (I think there were table top ads in dorm cafeterias if my memory is correct). 
The second vote passed, in my opinion bc the AD kept a lower profile and didn’t try to ran it down the students’ throats. 
Just one old man’s memory of it. I was only involved in 2002 so can’t speak first hand about the second one. 

The second vote passed because it was brilliantly written to take effect 2 or 3 years after the vote.   So a majority of the students at the time were not on the hook for the increased fee.   Plain and simple.  Of course you'll get students to vote yes for something really, really nice, as long as you don't ask them to pay for it.

As much as I appreciate the efforts of some of the SGA members at the time (one of whom used to be a regular here, and I feel gets a little too much credit on this forum), I think Rick & Co. went back to the drawing board, took a hard look at their previous failed attempt, and came back with a new strategy that worked.

  • Upvote 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Skeptical Eagle 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

The second vote passed because it was brilliantly written to take effect 2 or 3 years after the vote.   So a majority of the students at the time were not on the hook for the increased fee.   Plain and simple.  Of course you'll get students to vote yes for something really, really nice, as long as you don't ask them to pay for it.

As much as I appreciate the efforts of some of the SGA members at the time (one of whom used to be a regular here, and I feel gets a little too much credit on this forum), I think Rick & Co. went back to the drawing board, took a hard look at their previous failed attempt, and came back with a new strategy that worked.

Thanks.

I noticed this time Wren mentioned mentioned raising the fees to the maximum amount that does not require a vote. I am sure he realizes that if it were left up to the ones actually paying it would not stand a chance. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, we would complain even if the NIL money went directly into our own pockets. Everyone saying how bad this initiative is... it is far better than the one we have now and definitely better than the one you have started...

  • Confused 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



  • Tell a friend

    Love GoMeanGreen.com? Tell a friend!
  • What's going on Mean Green?

    1. 20

      Minimum number of wins for consideration

    2. 20

      Minimum number of wins for consideration

    3. 20

      Minimum number of wins for consideration

    4. 70

      POLL: Gunnell or Ruder? (Plus a PB GIF)

    5. 20

      Minimum number of wins for consideration

  • Popular Contributors

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      15,026
    • Most Online
      1,865

    Newest Member
    dichmist
    Joined
×
×
  • 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.