(07-07-2019 01:46 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 01:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 01:24 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 10:47 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 07:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The problem with this thinking is that there isn't really much evidence to support it, which makes its prevalence on campuses rather odd, given these are universities dedicated to facts, logic, etc.

For example, at your North Texas, the six years from 2005 - 2010 were absolutely abysmal in football, you guys never won more than three games in any of those years. And yet institutionally, they were years of excellent growth in enrollment, facilities, quality of students, and quality of faculty. The presence of abysmal football didn't abate that.

And since moving to CUSA, your have had up and down years, with the last two being up, but regardless, that institutional growth has continued unabated.

So growth at UNT - the kind of growth we would expect effective marketing to be the cause of - seems entirely unrelated to the UNT football team. Claims of $20m in marketing value for an Arkansas punt muff seem to be ephemeral, not connected to the real world.

And you are not alone - e.g., USF and UCF both experienced the same kind of institutional growth UNT has had, before they had football teams at all.

What seems to be the case is that rather than being a CAUSE of institutional growth, the presence of a football team backed by $20m+ in subsidies is an EFFECT of that growth: Once a school grows to a certain size and stature, the elites at the university - donors, prominent alumni, student leaders - develop the feeling that We Are Big Time Now, so we need a Big Football Team, as that is a Marker of Being a Big Time School. If we don't have Football, FBS football, then the other Texas (or Florida, or etc.) schools we see as Our Peers will Look Down on Us. So we Must Have It.

Squandering money on football is an effect of growth, not a cause. It becomes a toy in the house, or really in the porch or driveway, and at most places a very expensive one, a status symbol for the neighbors to see.

Even if the neighbors are chortling at the WannaBeism of it all.

yea looking at the numbers it is difficult to say it has been a good investment

2010

University of Houston 38,752

University of North Texas 36,067

The University of Texas at Arlington 32,975

Texas State University 32,572

Texas Tech University 31,587

The University of Texas at San Antonio 27,291

The University of Texas at El Paso 22,051

The University of Texas at Dallas 17,128


2015

University of Houston 42,704

Texas State University 37,979

University of North Texas 37,175

The University of Texas at Arlington 37,008

Texas Tech University 35,546

The University of Texas at San Antonio 30,258

The University of Texas at Dallas 24,554

The University of Texas at El Paso 23,308


2018

University of Houston 46,355

The University of Texas at Arlington 42,496

Texas State University 38,661

Texas Tech University 38,246

University of North Texas 38,154

The University of Texas at San Antonio 32,101

The University of Texas at Dallas 28,755

The University of Texas at El Paso 25,151


.............................................2010 ..........2018.....growth....%

The University of Texas at Dallas ..17,128.. 28,755 .. 11,627 ..67.88

The University of Texas at Arlington ..32,975 .. 42,496 ..9,521 ..28.87

Texas Tech University ..31,587 ..38,246 .. 6,659 ..21.08

University of Houston ..38,752 ..46,355 .. 7,603 ..19.62

Texas State University ..32,572 ..38,661 .. 6,089 .. 18.69

The University of Texas at San Antonio ..27,291 .. 32,101 .. 4,810 .. 17.62

The University of Texas at El Paso ..22,051 .. 25,151 .. 3,100 ..14.06

University of North Texas ..36,067 ..38,154 .. 2,087 ..5.79

I'm almost certain North Texas has raised their admission standards over that span of time, which could be a reason why our growth has been slower than others. It does not mater. UNT is still a very large public university playing FBS football.

I am 100% certain they have not

this is from 2007

https://web.archive.org/web/200709091842...admission/

AUTOMATIC ADMISSION

Applicants who graduated in the top 10% of their high school class shall be admitted automatically to the University.*

REGULAR ADMISSION

Applicants shall be guaranteed admission if they

Rank in the next 15%* and have a minimum 950 SAT I (combined Critical Reading/Verbal + Math) or 20 ACT or
Rank in the 2nd quarter and have a minimum 1050 SAT I (combined Critical Reading/Verbal + Math) or 23 ACT.
Rank in the 3rd quarter and have a minimum 1180 SAT I (combined Critical Reading/Verbal + Math) or 26 ACT.


this is from today

https://admissions.unt.edu/freshman/admi...quirements

Guaranteed admission requirements

You are guaranteed admission to UNT if you:

Rank in the top 10% of your high school class and submit SAT or ACT scores
Rank in the next 15% and have a minimum 950 SAT/1030 New SAT* (combined Critical Reading/Verbal + Math) or 20 ACT
Rank in the 2nd quarter and have a minimum 1050 SAT/1130 New SAT* (combined Critical Reading/Verbal + Math) or 23 ACT
Rank in the 3rd quarter and have a minimum 1180 SAT/1250 New SAT* (combined Critical Reading/Verbal + Math) or 26 ACT
Are a registered participant in UNT's Eagle Advantage program

Well than I guess the negative effects of our old AD leadership and Todd Dodge's terrible defensive coaching has had a longer lasting effect than I thought. Troll on.

yea it is definitely that....no way it could be stealing $75 million from the state, losing track of another $35 million

increasing student to faculty ratio, increasing % of adjunct faculty and non-tenure track faculty, charging one of the highest tuition rates for a public university in Texas (only behind UTD and aggy)....stagnant research production (declining for a number of years) and a number of other factors