(04-17-2014 12:11 PM)correcamino Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:47 AM)Green Menace Wrote:  Really? Four straight conference championships in football and four appearances in the New Orleans Bowl. What was utsa doing back then? Playing water polo at a rented Seaworld swimming hole?

What does UTSA have to do with the perception of UNT prior to joining C-USA? I've lived in Texas all my life and while I didn't have a team to call my own until recently I've always watched college football. The Sunbelt titles were a blip on the radar for cfb fans in Texas. I never cared or knew much about UNT football and judging by your attendance over the years neither did many people outside of Denton.

That's just the truth. No need to get angry about it. Turning it around is always a possibility--last year was a good start.

Oh please! A lecture from a utsa fan.

(04-16-2014 10:53 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 09:42 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I really think we could use a system of relegation / promotion like soccer has. The top 3 or 4 mid-majors should get moved up to their regional power conference every other year, or something like that. Similarly, the bottom 3 or 4 P5 schools should get moved down. This could be done fairly.

The obstacles are the Black Bears, Leg Humpers, and Yacht Club Commodores of the world. They know they're winners by association even if they go 0-12.

this would be impossible to do for a multitude of reasons and attendance would plummet across college football

1. college teams draw fan support from across the state while pro teams with the exception of a few like the Dallas Cowboys draw pretty much 100% locally or 90% locally

fans book hotel rooms months and sometimes a year or more in advance and this is impossible to do if you have no clue what teams you are even going to play not to mention that teams book rooms many months in advance along with TV crews

2. there is the issue of scholarship limits between D1-AA and D1-A so dropping teams up and down makes that an issue

3. what happens if 5 teams east of The Mississippi are the ones to "move up" and 5 teams west of The Rockies are the teams to move down......that is just stupid and no conference or group of teams is going to agree to travel like that

4. conferences get paid for being a conference not just for being some group of teams mashed together so when one team drops down who gets the revenues and who loses out on the revenues and networks are not just going to toss money into a pool for random teams to split up

and the idea that well the team leaving gives up their share and the team moving up gets that share is again ridiculous and the networks will answer that by signing individual teams to contracts and then having those teams play each other.......it split D1-A faster than you can blink because there will be no money available for teams moving up because "conferences" will no longer sign TV contracts teams will and then the networks will dictate scheduling for the most part and even if a team "moves up" they will find themselves getting zero revenue for doing so and playing a hodge podge of teams spread out all over the place that are left over from who the networks did not care about scheduling

college is not pros pros have 30-32 teams and that is why different things are possible while D1-A has 124 teams and growing (sadly) which is the entire issue and doing anything to give some teams that don't belong a leg up or hope that they do belong is counter productive even if they manage to have 2-3 good seasons in a row before their coach leaves or it all falls apart

Dude, at the end of the day, we're talking about kids running around on the grass with a leather ball. USM could play the University of Kazakhstan and no one would drop dead or anything. Baby's tummy might hurt and baby might cry but baby would get better... AndreWhere pwomises!

People who say **** like your post need to turn off ESPN and go skip some stones across a quiet country stream or something. The way things are right now is not the only way.

(04-17-2014 01:48 PM)Green Menace Wrote:  Oh please! A lecture from a utsa fan.

Again what does UTSA or my affiliation with it have to do with the perception of UNT? Am I supposed to think UNT was relevant simply because they had a team and my school didnt until recently?

(04-17-2014 01:48 PM)Green Menace Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 12:11 PM)correcamino Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:47 AM)Green Menace Wrote:  Really? Four straight conference championships in football and four appearances in the New Orleans Bowl. What was utsa doing back then? Playing water polo at a rented Seaworld swimming hole?

What does UTSA have to do with the perception of UNT prior to joining C-USA? I've lived in Texas all my life and while I didn't have a team to call my own until recently I've always watched college football. The Sunbelt titles were a blip on the radar for cfb fans in Texas. I never cared or knew much about UNT football and judging by your attendance over the years neither did many people outside of Denton.

That's just the truth. No need to get angry about it. Turning it around is always a possibility--last year was a good start.

Oh please! A lecture from a utsa fan.

He's right, chill. You think a UTSA fan doesn't already know they were not noticed until they got football a couple of years ago?

If they were in the same position we were, folks in the northern half of this state wouldn't know who they were. This isn't Rhode Island. It's a big effing state. I can count on one finger the times I've been to SA within the last 5 years.

The good news is, I can count on on 3 fingers how many times I'll be there in the next 5. And I now know that UTSA isn't in South Arlington.

I'm not one to undersell our accomplishments during the early 00's, I know it's hard to have an unbeaten streak like that in any conference. But if you think UTSA kids were sitting around wishing they could be UNT when they didn't even have a football team, you are mistaken.

Don't devolve this into a smack thread. One of our own fans posted with a question knowing full well the type of responses they would get. Honesty was asked for. Honesty is what was provided.

I'm just glad to have them on our schedule, and if we are being brutally honest, I could care less if it were them or Texas State. To me they are interchangeable.

(04-17-2014 06:50 PM)correcamino Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 01:48 PM)Green Menace Wrote:  Oh please! A lecture from a utsa fan.

Again what does UTSA or my affiliation with it have to do with the perception of UNT? Am I supposed to think UNT was relevant simply because they had a team and my school didnt until recently?

Well said. Sometimes when a question about perception is asked, and people don't like what they hear, they go on the attack. If you're gonna ask about the perception of your school, and want an honest answer, you have to take the good with the bad, unless you're just fishing for compliments, which would make the thread disingenuous. I'd say they're not helping their perception much when they attack people who don't say exactly what they want to hear.

(04-15-2014 10:32 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  TCU > SMU > North Texas in the metroplex. Good football in the 70's. Nice new stadium. Don Henley and Meatloaf!

Big potential with a ceiling way, way above SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, and Rice. Go "all in" like UH, and you steamroll SMU.

Is perception a reality when talking about NTU or is reality a perception?

Redheaded stepchild in the Metroplex. top school in Music and business.

(04-17-2014 10:36 AM)TheFIUtheproud Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 07:53 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 07:29 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 06:52 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 10:29 AM)NTTHOR Wrote:  before CUSA invited north texas to join, what was your perception of north texas? has it changed?

i know this can turn into a school bashing, not totally looking for that, but would like honest thoughts...please don't include stupid hatred like some schools may. i'm generally curious as to the perception before we were announced as joining this conference.

When you went I-A, my reaction was "ugh... here we go, diluting the top classification." I saw the whole AQ split coming and I still blame all the schools that moved up after 1990. (Tech was either the last legit move up or the first bogus one... I tend towards the second option).

That said, I've read so much UNT propaganda lately that it's probably starting to work on me. I'll never be impressed by the fact that you're near Dallas, though (you're barking up the wrong tree with that crap), and you don't do more research than Southern Miss (despite the fact that some of your posters just assume that).

Much to your dismay, Tech was the last legit move up. Right after we busted our tails to meet the criteria to move up to D-IA, the NCAA changed the rules and pretty much let anyone that wanted to move to DI-A do it.

That doesn't cause me any dismay whatsoever. Back then, there were maybe 95-100 teams in the top tier, and Tech, USM, and USL were all included in that number. I have no problem with these institutions being in FBS or CUSA.

NTSU, NLU, USA, Troy State, UTSA, ODU, FIU, FAU (etc. ad nauseam) were not in the top classification back then. And because (I would argue) there was enough pie for everyone to have a piece back then, no one was talking about AQ, or paying players, or unionizing, or "Division IV", or any of the other bull**** that's put USM where USM is right now.

It really was so much better back then. Each conference had its bowl tie in, and the best independents in any given year scrambled for bids. Auto-bids were set up by prosperity. The SEC had the Sugar Bowl, the WAC had the Holiday Bowl, and so on. There weren't these hard lines drawn between BCS and non-BCS that there are now. SEC fans didn't talk down to us as much back then because their superiority was much more subjective. There were years when USM went to the Sun Bowl, the Independence Bowl, the Citrus Bowl, and all sorts of other bowls that won't give us the time of day now.

What happened? Well, first, ESPN manufactured a bunch of drama about how I-A football didn't have a real champion. That was always horse ****... I can remember one or two years where there was a split national championship, but it's not like anyone dropped dead as a result. There was some relatively good-natured back-and-forth.

Second, the foundation of the Sun Belt really killed any notion of I-A as a cohesive top tier. Southern Miss was tolerable to an extent that Troy State et al. were not. The pie's big... but it ain't that big.

If I could turn back time to 1990, right after Tech moved up, I would erase a whole lot of things that seemed good for USM at the time, but on balance what's happened since 1990 has really been awful for us.

The good old days aren't always so good. Sorry about progress and all it has done to your program but your justifications are selfish and unwarranted. If USM is the big loser in all this then so be it. I would like to see a true market-driven football system or a fair-to-all system (non-greed based). Unfortunately, the big players (SEC, B1G, ACC, PAC, etc.) have formed a cartel that is anti-capitalist and doesn't let many break through. But personally I don't give a hoot about your sentimental old days when Army was a football power or when USM had a shot. USM should EARN success and not have it given to it.

Andre's view is USM can't compete as things currently stand, so let's go back to the '90s when the kids had no choice but USM if they wanted to play big boy football. Now those kids can go to Troy, South Al or (god forbid!) some < 10 year old program in a metro area.

If I truly believed that time has made my program hopelessly irrelevant, I would also pine for the "good ole" days.

(04-19-2014 11:55 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:36 AM)TheFIUtheproud Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 07:53 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 07:29 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 06:52 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  When you went I-A, my reaction was "ugh... here we go, diluting the top classification." I saw the whole AQ split coming and I still blame all the schools that moved up after 1990. (Tech was either the last legit move up or the first bogus one... I tend towards the second option).

That said, I've read so much UNT propaganda lately that it's probably starting to work on me. I'll never be impressed by the fact that you're near Dallas, though (you're barking up the wrong tree with that crap), and you don't do more research than Southern Miss (despite the fact that some of your posters just assume that).

Much to your dismay, Tech was the last legit move up. Right after we busted our tails to meet the criteria to move up to D-IA, the NCAA changed the rules and pretty much let anyone that wanted to move to DI-A do it.

That doesn't cause me any dismay whatsoever. Back then, there were maybe 95-100 teams in the top tier, and Tech, USM, and USL were all included in that number. I have no problem with these institutions being in FBS or CUSA.

NTSU, NLU, USA, Troy State, UTSA, ODU, FIU, FAU (etc. ad nauseam) were not in the top classification back then. And because (I would argue) there was enough pie for everyone to have a piece back then, no one was talking about AQ, or paying players, or unionizing, or "Division IV", or any of the other bull**** that's put USM where USM is right now.

It really was so much better back then. Each conference had its bowl tie in, and the best independents in any given year scrambled for bids. Auto-bids were set up by prosperity. The SEC had the Sugar Bowl, the WAC had the Holiday Bowl, and so on. There weren't these hard lines drawn between BCS and non-BCS that there are now. SEC fans didn't talk down to us as much back then because their superiority was much more subjective. There were years when USM went to the Sun Bowl, the Independence Bowl, the Citrus Bowl, and all sorts of other bowls that won't give us the time of day now.

What happened? Well, first, ESPN manufactured a bunch of drama about how I-A football didn't have a real champion. That was always horse ****... I can remember one or two years where there was a split national championship, but it's not like anyone dropped dead as a result. There was some relatively good-natured back-and-forth.

Second, the foundation of the Sun Belt really killed any notion of I-A as a cohesive top tier. Southern Miss was tolerable to an extent that Troy State et al. were not. The pie's big... but it ain't that big.

If I could turn back time to 1990, right after Tech moved up, I would erase a whole lot of things that seemed good for USM at the time, but on balance what's happened since 1990 has really been awful for us.

The good old days aren't always so good. Sorry about progress and all it has done to your program but your justifications are selfish and unwarranted. If USM is the big loser in all this then so be it. I would like to see a true market-driven football system or a fair-to-all system (non-greed based). Unfortunately, the big players (SEC, B1G, ACC, PAC, etc.) have formed a cartel that is anti-capitalist and doesn't let many break through. But personally I don't give a hoot about your sentimental old days when Army was a football power or when USM had a shot. USM should EARN success and not have it given to it.

Andre's view is USM can't compete as things currently stand, so let's go back to the '90s when the kids had no choice but USM if they wanted to play big boy football. Now those kids can go to Troy, South Al or (god forbid!) some < 10 year old program in a metro area.

If I truly believed that time has made my program hopelessly irrelevant, I would also pine for the "good ole" days.

North Texas first played Southern Miss in 1954 (and won). We won 3 of the first 4 and are 4-4 all time with the Golden Eagles.

(04-19-2014 12:30 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 11:55 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:36 AM)TheFIUtheproud Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 07:53 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 07:29 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  Much to your dismay, Tech was the last legit move up. Right after we busted our tails to meet the criteria to move up to D-IA, the NCAA changed the rules and pretty much let anyone that wanted to move to DI-A do it.

That doesn't cause me any dismay whatsoever. Back then, there were maybe 95-100 teams in the top tier, and Tech, USM, and USL were all included in that number. I have no problem with these institutions being in FBS or CUSA.

NTSU, NLU, USA, Troy State, UTSA, ODU, FIU, FAU (etc. ad nauseam) were not in the top classification back then. And because (I would argue) there was enough pie for everyone to have a piece back then, no one was talking about AQ, or paying players, or unionizing, or "Division IV", or any of the other bull**** that's put USM where USM is right now.

It really was so much better back then. Each conference had its bowl tie in, and the best independents in any given year scrambled for bids. Auto-bids were set up by prosperity. The SEC had the Sugar Bowl, the WAC had the Holiday Bowl, and so on. There weren't these hard lines drawn between BCS and non-BCS that there are now. SEC fans didn't talk down to us as much back then because their superiority was much more subjective. There were years when USM went to the Sun Bowl, the Independence Bowl, the Citrus Bowl, and all sorts of other bowls that won't give us the time of day now.

What happened? Well, first, ESPN manufactured a bunch of drama about how I-A football didn't have a real champion. That was always horse ****... I can remember one or two years where there was a split national championship, but it's not like anyone dropped dead as a result. There was some relatively good-natured back-and-forth.

Second, the foundation of the Sun Belt really killed any notion of I-A as a cohesive top tier. Southern Miss was tolerable to an extent that Troy State et al. were not. The pie's big... but it ain't that big.

If I could turn back time to 1990, right after Tech moved up, I would erase a whole lot of things that seemed good for USM at the time, but on balance what's happened since 1990 has really been awful for us.

The good old days aren't always so good. Sorry about progress and all it has done to your program but your justifications are selfish and unwarranted. If USM is the big loser in all this then so be it. I would like to see a true market-driven football system or a fair-to-all system (non-greed based). Unfortunately, the big players (SEC, B1G, ACC, PAC, etc.) have formed a cartel that is anti-capitalist and doesn't let many break through. But personally I don't give a hoot about your sentimental old days when Army was a football power or when USM had a shot. USM should EARN success and not have it given to it.

Andre's view is USM can't compete as things currently stand, so let's go back to the '90s when the kids had no choice but USM if they wanted to play big boy football. Now those kids can go to Troy, South Al or (god forbid!) some < 10 year old program in a metro area.

If I truly believed that time has made my program hopelessly irrelevant, I would also pine for the "good ole" days.

North Texas first played Southern Miss in 1954 (and won). We won 3 of the first 4 and are 4-4 all time with the Golden Eagles.

NT has a very similar history to USM, except for that period of time (1980-1995?) when you gave up on being I-A. I give you credit for your history but subtract points for the period of time when you turned tail and retreated.

It's also worth noting that the "good ole days" weren't just USM's golden era. They were a time in which college football was more of a true amateur sport for college students and alumni and less of a cash cow media event. You make the call: the Gipper or Mante Teo; Missouri in the SEC or Tulane in the SEC; Mike Leach or Tom Osborne; etc.

Personally, I'm just fine with our golden era being the Tom Osborne era and yours (maybe) being a part of the Mante Teo era. Have fun with that. And all I'm saying is 1) CFB should be an amateur sporting event, not a TV show for people who need to just pick an NFL team, and 2) schools should have more of a say in what level they compete at than ESPN has. If that disrupts anyone's financial plan, well, they need to get a real ******* job.

(04-19-2014 03:20 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 12:30 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 11:55 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:36 AM)TheFIUtheproud Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 07:53 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  That doesn't cause me any dismay whatsoever. Back then, there were maybe 95-100 teams in the top tier, and Tech, USM, and USL were all included in that number. I have no problem with these institutions being in FBS or CUSA.

NTSU, NLU, USA, Troy State, UTSA, ODU, FIU, FAU (etc. ad nauseam) were not in the top classification back then. And because (I would argue) there was enough pie for everyone to have a piece back then, no one was talking about AQ, or paying players, or unionizing, or "Division IV", or any of the other bull**** that's put USM where USM is right now.

It really was so much better back then. Each conference had its bowl tie in, and the best independents in any given year scrambled for bids. Auto-bids were set up by prosperity. The SEC had the Sugar Bowl, the WAC had the Holiday Bowl, and so on. There weren't these hard lines drawn between BCS and non-BCS that there are now. SEC fans didn't talk down to us as much back then because their superiority was much more subjective. There were years when USM went to the Sun Bowl, the Independence Bowl, the Citrus Bowl, and all sorts of other bowls that won't give us the time of day now.

What happened? Well, first, ESPN manufactured a bunch of drama about how I-A football didn't have a real champion. That was always horse ****... I can remember one or two years where there was a split national championship, but it's not like anyone dropped dead as a result. There was some relatively good-natured back-and-forth.

Second, the foundation of the Sun Belt really killed any notion of I-A as a cohesive top tier. Southern Miss was tolerable to an extent that Troy State et al. were not. The pie's big... but it ain't that big.

If I could turn back time to 1990, right after Tech moved up, I would erase a whole lot of things that seemed good for USM at the time, but on balance what's happened since 1990 has really been awful for us.

The good old days aren't always so good. Sorry about progress and all it has done to your program but your justifications are selfish and unwarranted. If USM is the big loser in all this then so be it. I would like to see a true market-driven football system or a fair-to-all system (non-greed based). Unfortunately, the big players (SEC, B1G, ACC, PAC, etc.) have formed a cartel that is anti-capitalist and doesn't let many break through. But personally I don't give a hoot about your sentimental old days when Army was a football power or when USM had a shot. USM should EARN success and not have it given to it.

Andre's view is USM can't compete as things currently stand, so let's go back to the '90s when the kids had no choice but USM if they wanted to play big boy football. Now those kids can go to Troy, South Al or (god forbid!) some < 10 year old program in a metro area.

If I truly believed that time has made my program hopelessly irrelevant, I would also pine for the "good ole" days.

North Texas first played Southern Miss in 1954 (and won). We won 3 of the first 4 and are 4-4 all time with the Golden Eagles.

NT has a very similar history to USM, except for that period of time (1980-1995?) when you gave up on being I-A. I give you credit for your history but subtract points for the period of time when you turned tail and retreated.

It's also worth noting that the "good ole days" weren't just USM's golden era. They were a time in which college football was more of a true amateur sport for college students and alumni and less of a cash cow media event. You make the call: the Gipper or Mante Teo; Missouri in the SEC or Tulane in the SEC; Mike Leach or Tom Osborne; etc.

Personally, I'm just fine with our golden era being the Tom Osborne era and yours (maybe) being a part of the Mante Teo era. Have fun with that. And all I'm saying is 1) CFB should be an amateur sporting event, not a TV show for people who need to just pick an NFL team, and 2) schools should have more of a say in what level they compete at than ESPN has. If that disrupts anyone's financial plan, well, they need to get a real ******* job.

their histories are really not that similar at all

USM has a much better winning % 561-396-27 vs 489-470-35

USM is 10-10 in bowl games vs 2-5

and USM has been ranked in recent memory with the last time being in 2011 and 4 times total while north Texas state has been ranked 1 time back in 1977

USM actually has the football history that north Texas state pretends they have

(04-19-2014 03:59 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 03:20 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 12:30 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 11:55 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:36 AM)TheFIUtheproud Wrote:  The good old days aren't always so good. Sorry about progress and all it has done to your program but your justifications are selfish and unwarranted. If USM is the big loser in all this then so be it. I would like to see a true market-driven football system or a fair-to-all system (non-greed based). Unfortunately, the big players (SEC, B1G, ACC, PAC, etc.) have formed a cartel that is anti-capitalist and doesn't let many break through. But personally I don't give a hoot about your sentimental old days when Army was a football power or when USM had a shot. USM should EARN success and not have it given to it.

Andre's view is USM can't compete as things currently stand, so let's go back to the '90s when the kids had no choice but USM if they wanted to play big boy football. Now those kids can go to Troy, South Al or (god forbid!) some < 10 year old program in a metro area.

If I truly believed that time has made my program hopelessly irrelevant, I would also pine for the "good ole" days.

North Texas first played Southern Miss in 1954 (and won). We won 3 of the first 4 and are 4-4 all time with the Golden Eagles.

NT has a very similar history to USM, except for that period of time (1980-1995?) when you gave up on being I-A. I give you credit for your history but subtract points for the period of time when you turned tail and retreated.

It's also worth noting that the "good ole days" weren't just USM's golden era. They were a time in which college football was more of a true amateur sport for college students and alumni and less of a cash cow media event. You make the call: the Gipper or Mante Teo; Missouri in the SEC or Tulane in the SEC; Mike Leach or Tom Osborne; etc.

Personally, I'm just fine with our golden era being the Tom Osborne era and yours (maybe) being a part of the Mante Teo era. Have fun with that. And all I'm saying is 1) CFB should be an amateur sporting event, not a TV show for people who need to just pick an NFL team, and 2) schools should have more of a say in what level they compete at than ESPN has. If that disrupts anyone's financial plan, well, they need to get a real ******* job.

their histories are really not that similar at all

USM has a much better winning % 561-396-27 vs 489-470-35

USM is 10-10 in bowl games vs 2-5

and USM has been ranked in recent memory with the last time being in 2011 and 4 times total while north Texas state has been ranked 1 time back in 1977

USM actually has the football history that north Texas state pretends they have

TodgeRodge is a pathetic troll who couldn't make it at North Texas sometime back. He's too childish to move on and will always be bitter.

I ran into UNT fans for the first time at the Staggering Drunkeness Bowl years ago. 2004 or 2005. or maybe 2003. I forget. I was hammered.

the thing I remember most is thinking, "holy sh!t, I haven't seen this much green in once place since st patricks day", and admiring all the hot texas wimmins with their big texas boobs and big texas hair.

I remember being impressed. what I don't remember is tipping $200 on a $150 bar tab, but the visa bill was indisputable.

(04-19-2014 04:39 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I ran into UNT fans for the first time at the Staggering Drunkeness Bowl years ago. 2004 or 2005. or maybe 2003. I forget. I was hammered.

the thing I remember most is thinking, "holy sh!t, I haven't seen this much green in once place since st patricks day", and admiring all the hot texas wimmins with their big texas boobs and big texas hair.

I remember being impressed. what I don't remember is tipping $200 on a $150 bar tab, but the visa bill was indisputable.

Solid overview of North Texas State.

Hmmmm

as far as football goes...

Had some past success...but in the Sun Belt, almost got conference aligned into football oblivion.

Glad to see that CUSA and your own internal efforts have benefited you into growing into a quality football program.

"NT has a very similar history to USM, except for that period of time (1980-1995?) when you gave up on being I-A. I give you credit for your history but subtract points for the period of time when you turned tail and retreated."

Those were the darkest of times for UNT football. Due to bad leadership, we opted to not expand the old stadium to the required 30k to remain in Division I football. That 10 year retreat cost us dearly.