This billboard was erected at the location of the new facility. Construction is expected to start within the next few months, and will include a new football weight room and meeting rooms. In related news, North Texas will begin construction of a new track and soccer stadium this Saturday.

Nice! Between the lovely stadium you guys have now, and this new indoor facility in the works, you're definitely headed in the right direction. Have a feeling you might become a yearly contender.

(10-24-2017 06:49 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  Nice! Between the lovely stadium you guys have now, and this new indoor facility in the works, you're definitely headed in the right direction. Have a feeling you might become a yearly contender.

Thanks. We are still irritated by the horrendous loss at FAU. But, I'll give our athletic department credit for doing a nice job of distracting us with a shinny new toy.

Super cool. Congrats, UNT! Things are looking up for you guys!

Looks good. I like that the exterior matches Apogee.

If I really sit down and think about it I always come to the conclusion that this arms race is really f'n stupid though. Shiny, pimped out lockers and IPFs (in TX atleast) are completely unnecessary. Not trying to hate, as I'm sure I'd be thrilled if UTSA got one but it just seems like a case of keeping up with the Jones rather than something thats truly needed. What UAB and USA got seems more practical.

(10-24-2017 07:28 PM)correcamino Wrote:  Looks good. I like that the exterior matches Apogee.

If I really sit down and think about it I always come to the conclusion that this arms race is really f'n stupid though. Shiny, pimped out lockers and IPFs (in TX atleast) are completely unnecessary. Not trying to hate, as I'm sure I'd be thrilled if UTSA got one but it just seems like a case of keeping up with the Jones rather than something thats truly needed. What UAB and USA got seems more practical.

All about impressing the recruits these days.

(10-24-2017 07:28 PM)correcamino Wrote:  Looks good. I like that the exterior matches Apogee.

If I really sit down and think about it I always come to the conclusion that this arms race is really f'n stupid though. Shiny, pimped out lockers and IPFs (in TX atleast) are completely unnecessary. Not trying to hate, as I'm sure I'd be thrilled if UTSA got one but it just seems like a case of keeping up with the Jones rather than something thats truly needed. What UAB and USA got seems more practical.

I completely disagree about a IPF being "completely unnecessary" in Texas. We may not get the snow but we get plenty of ice, sleet, wind, and other miserable weather. Plus, being able get out of the summer heat is a huge plus.

(10-24-2017 07:31 PM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 07:28 PM)correcamino Wrote:  Looks good. I like that the exterior matches Apogee.

If I really sit down and think about it I always come to the conclusion that this arms race is really f'n stupid though. Shiny, pimped out lockers and IPFs (in TX atleast) are completely unnecessary. Not trying to hate, as I'm sure I'd be thrilled if UTSA got one but it just seems like a case of keeping up with the Jones rather than something thats truly needed. What UAB and USA got seems more practical.

All about impressing the recruits these days.

Kids buy with their eyes. Its the reason if a school isn't building something new or renovating something then they are falling behind.

What was the cost?

(10-24-2017 10:54 PM)Irish Rowdy Wrote:  What was the cost?

We've yet to have a formal press conference about it but it was reported previously to be about $16 million. The plan is to connect this building with our current athletic building. I think that's a later project but, again, we're still lacking details at this point.

Jealous!

WKU had one in plans then taken away what looks like maybe a long time, we desperately need an IPF to keep up....

(10-24-2017 07:28 PM)correcamino Wrote:  Looks good. I like that the exterior matches Apogee.

If I really sit down and think about it I always come to the conclusion that this arms race is really f'n stupid though. Shiny, pimped out lockers and IPFs (in TX atleast) are completely unnecessary. Not trying to hate, as I'm sure I'd be thrilled if UTSA got one but it just seems like a case of keeping up with the Jones rather than something thats truly needed. What UAB and USA got seems more practical.

Gotta disagree with you on this one. Teams practice outdoors in middle school and high school, as well as D2. It's not unreasonable for a recruit at the FBS level to expect something more. And if your school has that something more, which basically puts you on a somewhat more level playing field with the P5's, you're putting yourself in a great position to pull in some of those recruits you may not have gotten otherwise.

Understand also, a football stadium basically gets used 6 days in the year for football, and a small handful of other days for other possible events. An indoor practice facility gets used daily throughout the course of a football season, so I think it's a very good investment in that respect.

(10-25-2017 11:38 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 07:28 PM)correcamino Wrote:  Looks good. I like that the exterior matches Apogee.

If I really sit down and think about it I always come to the conclusion that this arms race is really f'n stupid though. Shiny, pimped out lockers and IPFs (in TX atleast) are completely unnecessary. Not trying to hate, as I'm sure I'd be thrilled if UTSA got one but it just seems like a case of keeping up with the Jones rather than something thats truly needed. What UAB and USA got seems more practical.

Gotta disagree with you on this one. Teams practice outdoors in middle school and high school, as well as D2. It's not unreasonable for a recruit at the FBS level to expect something more. And if your school has that something more, which basically puts you on a somewhat more level playing field with the P5's, you're putting yourself in a great position to pull in some of those recruits you may not have gotten otherwise.

Understand also, a football stadium basically gets used 6 days in the year for football, and a small handful of other days for other possible events. An indoor practice facility gets used daily throughout the course of a football season, so I think it's a very good investment in that respect.

It isn't often that I agree with a Roadrunner, but you are spot on here. In addition to what you have stated, the indoor practice facility is important because more then a few DFW area high schools already have them. And, it is a facility SMU doesn't seem to be able to offer their recruits. I don't believe they have the room to build one.

(10-25-2017 07:59 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 11:38 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 07:28 PM)correcamino Wrote:  Looks good. I like that the exterior matches Apogee.

If I really sit down and think about it I always come to the conclusion that this arms race is really f'n stupid though. Shiny, pimped out lockers and IPFs (in TX atleast) are completely unnecessary. Not trying to hate, as I'm sure I'd be thrilled if UTSA got one but it just seems like a case of keeping up with the Jones rather than something thats truly needed. What UAB and USA got seems more practical.

Gotta disagree with you on this one. Teams practice outdoors in middle school and high school, as well as D2. It's not unreasonable for a recruit at the FBS level to expect something more. And if your school has that something more, which basically puts you on a somewhat more level playing field with the P5's, you're putting yourself in a great position to pull in some of those recruits you may not have gotten otherwise.

Understand also, a football stadium basically gets used 6 days in the year for football, and a small handful of other days for other possible events. An indoor practice facility gets used daily throughout the course of a football season, so I think it's a very good investment in that respect.

It isn't often that I agree with a Roadrunner, but you are spot on here. In addition to what you have stated, the indoor practice facility is important because more then a few DFW area high schools already have them. And, it is a facility SMU doesn't seem to be able to offer their recruits. I don't believe they have the room to build one.

Just looked at SMU's athletic website. They don't have baseball team either. Damn, y'all are some no having baseball people in the DFW area. No wonder Dallas Baptist and UTA can have good baseball teams each year. I love North Texas and I'm glad you're in CUSA but the conference should make you field a baseball team before you're allowed to build these other facilities. You have a huge advantage over the other teams in the conference and imo it's not right.

(10-25-2017 08:13 PM)deb025 Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 07:59 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 11:38 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 07:28 PM)correcamino Wrote:  Looks good. I like that the exterior matches Apogee.

If I really sit down and think about it I always come to the conclusion that this arms race is really f'n stupid though. Shiny, pimped out lockers and IPFs (in TX atleast) are completely unnecessary. Not trying to hate, as I'm sure I'd be thrilled if UTSA got one but it just seems like a case of keeping up with the Jones rather than something thats truly needed. What UAB and USA got seems more practical.

Gotta disagree with you on this one. Teams practice outdoors in middle school and high school, as well as D2. It's not unreasonable for a recruit at the FBS level to expect something more. And if your school has that something more, which basically puts you on a somewhat more level playing field with the P5's, you're putting yourself in a great position to pull in some of those recruits you may not have gotten otherwise.

Understand also, a football stadium basically gets used 6 days in the year for football, and a small handful of other days for other possible events. An indoor practice facility gets used daily throughout the course of a football season, so I think it's a very good investment in that respect.

It isn't often that I agree with a Roadrunner, but you are spot on here. In addition to what you have stated, the indoor practice facility is important because more then a few DFW area high schools already have them. And, it is a facility SMU doesn't seem to be able to offer their recruits. I don't believe they have the room to build one.

Just looked at SMU's athletic website. They don't have baseball team either. Damn, y'all are some no having baseball people in the DFW area. No wonder Dallas Baptist and UTA can have good baseball teams each year. I love North Texas and I'm glad you're in CUSA but the conference should make you field a baseball team before you're allowed to build these other facilities. You have a huge advantage over the other teams in the conference and imo it's not right.

and I think UNT would be at least an ok baseball program in a good baseball Conference being in the Dallas, TX area.

(10-25-2017 11:38 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 07:28 PM)correcamino Wrote:  Looks good. I like that the exterior matches Apogee.

If I really sit down and think about it I always come to the conclusion that this arms race is really f'n stupid though. Shiny, pimped out lockers and IPFs (in TX atleast) are completely unnecessary. Not trying to hate, as I'm sure I'd be thrilled if UTSA got one but it just seems like a case of keeping up with the Jones rather than something thats truly needed. What UAB and USA got seems more practical.

Gotta disagree with you on this one. Teams practice outdoors in middle school and high school, as well as D2. It's not unreasonable for a recruit at the FBS level to expect something more. And if your school has that something more, which basically puts you on a somewhat more level playing field with the P5's, you're putting yourself in a great position to pull in some of those recruits you may not have gotten otherwise.

Understand also, a football stadium basically gets used 6 days in the year for football, and a small handful of other days for other possible events. An indoor practice facility gets used daily throughout the course of a football season, so I think it's a very good investment in that respect.

Idk man, we practiced in beat up grass that was used for all outdoor sports when I was in HS. It's still a step up to practice on a nice, probably not cheap, football-only outdoor turf like our guys at UTSA do. Or like i said, what UAB and USA got also seems very nice and more practical.

But maybe times are just changing if even TX high schools have them. I get that they help recruiting (just like shiny locker rooms do) they just don't seem practical to me.

clt says interesting font choice

Part of a senseless sports arms race where there are no winners at the CUSA level. There are however losers if you don't keep up with peer institutions.

80% of the NCAA FB division cannot keep up with the power teams who actually make money. The top teams have to look for ways to spend money, the others go further and further in the financial hole trying to compete. This will, if unabated at some point, sink a lot of programs.

IPFs, elaborate locker rooms, giant weight facilities, etc. are obviously not necessary as few programs had them only a few decades ago. It is all about recruiting and little to do with actually improving the players that are currently there.

I seriously thought this was a picture of the IPF, not a billboard...

News recently came out that the indoor practice facility will break ground this fall and be ready for the 2019 season. Here is a new architectural drawing.