Nt Daily Ad

[UNTflyer]

This is the ad we will be running Tue, Wed, Thu (3 x 5) and Friday (half page). Sorry, no T-Rex or ninjas... just the facts.

Edited October 8, 2008 by UNTflyer

[e-bone ver2.awesome]

I think the "Fall 2011" should be in Bold, Italics, and in the Star Wars font.

In fact, if it isn't going to be jazzed up with some sweet clip art then make the whole thing in Star Wars font!

Edited October 8, 2008 by e-bone ver2.awesome

[UNTflyer]

Changed... sorry, no Star Wars font.

[stebo]

I can't see it - is there a setting on my computer that I need to change?

[greenjoe]

Looks good. I do agree the "no increase until Fall 2001" needs to be bigger, but that's just me. What size ad ? 1/4 page ? 1/2 page ? Full ?

GO STADIUM

GO MEAN GREEN

[Censored by Laurie]

Playing devil's advocate...do you think it is best for the headline to be a vote for the stadium when the actual vote is for the athletics fee?

[Green Mean]

Fall 2011 has to be a lot more visible and bigger. Remember we cannot have anything EFF up. Lets just make it stand out as much as possible.

[Green Dozer]

TO FLYER, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS:

The only facts on this flyer that have any basis is the fact it is a "green" stadium, and that Fouts needs to be replaced. My questions, which you cannot seem to answer are:

1) How do you know this will lead to a better conference affiliation. The team will certainly have to be improved, and that will not be overnight as we well know. When has another conference said build a new stadium, and you can come to our conference.

2) How do you know donors will step up. Nobody has come out in any editorial anywhere saying if UNT builds a stadium,they will step up and give $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Not one, and sorry, I just don't see that many donors in the shadows. Donors did not exactly flock to the program when we were winning conference championships and playing in a bowl game.

3) National recognition? For what? Do more people know about South Florida or SMU because of a new stadium? No, again, it is what takes place on the field.

The rest of the program, besides the stadium, will have to be funded. Noticed an article in the DRC that Muschamp at TX makes $475,000 as def. coordinator. Bet that is a competitive salary. Those kind of guys are who we might want to look at as a head coach. Think a new stadium is going to make up for the salary cut a coach at that level would take to be the head coach here. Sorry, RV is right, we have got to throw DOLLARS at this program, not pocket change. The stadium will be just a big, pretty band aid on an ill program.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Green Dozer

[Censored by Laurie]

TO FLYER, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS:

The only facts on this flyer that have any basis is the fact it is a "green" stadium, and that Fouts needs to be replaced. My questions, which you cannot seem to answer are:

1) How does he know this will lead to a better conference affiliation. The team will certainly have to be improved, and that will not be overnight as we well know.

2) How does Flyer know donors will step up. Nobody has come out in any editorial anywhere saying if they build the stadium, I will step up and give $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Donors did not exactly flock to the program when we were winning conference championships and playing in a bowl game. Again, the stadium will be just a big, pretty band aid.

Not that I doubt...well at least #2...but by including these statements you are opening yourself up to attack. Questions like "Can you prove that this stadium will improve our conference" don't have answers.

Are you showing this as is and it has already been submitted? The more I read and look at it the more flaws I'm seeing and am concerned that with tight vote putting poor information may sway the 27 people who read the Daily.

For clarification...I quoted Green Dozer in support of his concerns...and am directing my questions toward UNTFlyer...it was kinda an awkward quoting I suppose.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Censored by Laurie

[Green Dozer]

Not that I doubt...well at least #2...but by including these statements you are opening yourself up to attack. Questions like "Can you prove that this stadium will improve our conference" don't have answers.

Are you showing this as is and it has already been submitted? The more I read and look at it the more flaws I'm seeing and am concerned that with tight vote putting poor information may sway the 27 people who read the Daily.

For clarification...I quoted Green Dozer in support of his concerns...and am directing my questions toward UNTFlyer...it was kinda an awkward quoting I suppose.

Thanks for your post. I think first, I think the campaign should have been run for just an '"athletic fee". Now, it has become a fundraiser for the stadium. We do not know that a new stadium will get us to a new conference, get better recruits, and improve donations. The athletic fee could have been used to get better coaches for all sports, better facilities, better support staff, the list goes on. I am just afraid the students are going to now judge what has become a stadium vote on our team record of the past couple of years. Again, a campaign that an athletic fee (and it would) would greatly enhance our athletic program, helping to make us more competetive, leading us to better things including a new stadium. This is not personal to anybody, though some will take it that way.

[GrandGreen]

Geez, what do you want put in the ad. There are no guarantees that NT will ever move up in conference affiliation or that donations will immediately flow in. However, the odds of those things happening will be greatly enhanced with a strong commitment from the student body via a positive stadium vote.

[gangrene]

LOL...Being in the advertising business, I know how difficult it is to get just two or three clients to agree on every aspect of an ad. Giving an entire forum the opportunity to provide feedback is just funny to me.

[Quoner]

Here's a truism as old as advertising itself:

MORE POSTERS

[Green Dozer]

One more thing, the promises that you and your crew make (national recognition, better conference affiliation, and more donors) had better come true. If they don't, the students who vote for this will remember what they promised in a few years. Then, as a alumnae, they will believe the university failed to deliver on its promise and not give to anything. You are walking a fine line with promises of things that cannot be factually backed up at this time.

[Censored by Laurie]

Geez, what do you want put in the ad. There are no guarantees that NT will ever move up in conference affiliation or that donations will immediately flow in. However, the odds of those things happening will be greatly enhanced with a strong commitment from the student body via a positive stadium vote.

Nobody is arguing that...but presenting it as fact that it will happen is dangerous. Dozer was simply pointing out that the only facts in the why section were that the stadium will be LEEDS certified and that Fouts is shit. Making such statements about conference affiliation, donors and national recognition are not facts and creates an indiffencable position.

[gangrene]

One more thing, the promises that you and your crew make (national recognition, better conference affiliation, and more donors) had better come true. If they don't, the students who vote for this will remember what they promised in a few years. Then, as a alumnae, they will believe the university failed to deliver on its promise and not give to anything. You are walking a fine line with promises of things that cannot be factually backed up at this time.

Since when has any politician ever been held accountable for empty campaign promises?

[Green Dozer]

Geez, what do you want put in the ad. There are no guarantees that NT will ever move up in conference affiliation or that donations will immediately flow in. However, the odds of those things happening will be greatly enhanced with a strong commitment from the student body via a positive stadium vote.

The promises that this campaign group (national recognition, better conference affiliation, and more donors) had better come true. If they don't, the students who vote for this will remember what they promised in a few years. Then, as a alumnae, they will believe the university failed to deliver on its promises and not give to anything. We are walking a fine line with promises of things that cannot be factually backed up at this time. Your right, the fee enhances our program, and that should be what it should say. But no, it has become a "stadium fee", and it will make for a closer vote.

[Green Dozer]

Since when has any politician ever been held accountable for empty campaign promises?

Well, excuse me, I did not think a person was running for office in this campaign. The right facts just need to be out there. If, you as an alumnae, were voting for something, how would you feel if this university presented in such way with misleading facts? You wouldn't like it. Fact is, in the real world, we no longer have an expectation of integrity with our politicians. But, I expect integrity from my university.

[Censored by Laurie]

Since when has any politician ever been held accountable for empty campaign promises?

Americans are very fickle when it comes to their politicians. Really I think most are masochists

UNT alumni are already very tight with their donations and loose with their affiliations...if they weren't you would think that a school with 118 years of history and a current enrollment of 34,000 would have little to no trouble drumming up 60 million dollars. Not fulfilling promises to these students would only continue the disturbing trend of giving the middle finger to alums

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

I agree with you on point #1. It would've been correct to say "Chance of Better Conference Affiliation." However, I'd bet that the reverse would be true. Without a new stadium our chances for a better conference are nil. We are not going to get the kind of attendance required to be accepted into a better conference with this stadium. And what school would vote for us that has played here and endured the visitor's dressing room?

I do think that history would bear out the assertion that a new stadium would bring in increased donations. There are enough known contributors that have said that they would increase their donations to a stadium fund to make that statement true. Also, at least some of the several millions pledged are likely contingent on the new stadium. I'd also wager that there are other donors not yet revealed. Remember, the AD has to come up with $30 million as well. They're not going to wait until this thing passes and then say. "now who wants to step to the plate?"

I like the fact that it forces the Athletics Fee to be tied to the stadium? As someone pointed out, the students could conceive that the fee increase was going for coaches' salaries, etc. This tells me that this fee is for a stadium because it is advertised as such..

I also like highliting the fee start date in the Fall of 2011. No one except the freshmen will pay anything and it will cost them only an additional $210. Okay, I need to include those that take five or six years to graduate. They'll get hit with a few bucks also.

Edited October 8, 2008 by GrayEagleOne

[Green Dozer]

Fall 2011 has to be a lot more visible and bigger. Remember we cannot have anything EFF up. Lets just make it stand out as much as possible.

Question from a student: Does the athletic department have funds for the donors' part of the stadium cost to begin construction so we can play at our new stadium in 2011?

RV: ah....well.....just hang with me, we're headed in the right direction.

Green Mean, can you come in close to answering that? It will take a miracle for 2011 and we should not be misleading people, especially future donors.

[Green Mean]

Question from a student: Does the athletic department have funds for the donors' part of the stadium cost to begin construction so we can play at our new stadium in 2011?

RV: ah....well.....just hang with me, we're headed in the right direction.

Green Mean, can you come in close to answering that? It will take a miracle for 2011 and we should not be misleading people, especially future donors.

Agreed.

Well I guess we can put 2012 or 2013. It is hard to say because the whole stadium is based on this stinkin vote and if it passes. RV just is not sure when this thing will actually get built. This whole situation is wheels off if you ask me.

[Green Dozer]

I do think that history would bear out the assertion that a new stadium would bring in increased donations. There are enough known contributors that have said that they would increase their donations to a stadium fund to make that statement true. Also, at least some of the several millions pledged are likely contingent on the new stadium. I'd also wager that there are other donors not yet revealed. Remember, the AD has to come up with $30 million as well. They're not going to wait until this thing passes and then say. "now who wants to step to the plate?"

I like the fact that it forces the Athletics Fee to be tied to the stadium? As someone pointed out, the students could conceive that the fee increase was going for coaches' salaries, etc. This tells me that this fee is for a stadium.

I also like highliting the fee start date in the Fall of 2011. No one except the freshmen will pay anything and it will cost them only an additional $210. Okay, I need to include those that take five or six years to graduate. They'll get hit with a few bucks also.

Our history bears out that a new stadium would bring in increased donations? There are not several million pledged. Walk up to an athletic department employee and ask where to send your donation for the stadium. If there were these millions, we would know about it. The best time to have raised money for this stadium was when we were in the midst of our conference run. Why didn't these million dollar donors step up then? I think they will wait.

[UNTflyer]

Question from a student: Does the athletic department have funds for the donors' part of the stadium cost to begin construction so we can play at our new stadium in 2011?

I've said this before, all that is needed to start construction is the student vote. That's it. We don't need another nickel. But since you are that concerned, we do have about 10% in private donations already.

And, I really don't get this veiled threat that we better deliver all of these promises or else. Or else what? Alumni will refuse to donate? Do you think that really scares a university that suffers from minimal alumni support? Good God...

Edited October 8, 2008 by UNTflyer

[Green Mean]

So we have only raised about 6 million dollars for the new stadium? Good god that is just pathetic.