I don't like to get into acdamics side of schools
I don't disparage anybody trying to get education
Arlington & Dallas are commuter schools
Fill out paper work & check your in

Don't cities & States build stadiums & arena for pro sports team
Tax breaks, parking money in city lots
The city wants to be revalent to attract business & corporate headquarters

What the difference in states wanting their Unerversity to be revalant

(07-07-2019 11:08 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  I don't like to get into acdamics side of schools
I don't disparage anybody trying to get education
Arlington & Dallas are commuter schools
Fill out paper work & check your in

you should stick to knowing you do not know what you are talking about

UTD has the 3rd highest admissions standards for a state university in Texas and they are about the same as aggy......Texas Tech would be the clear 4th

the admissions for UTA are the same as a number of other universities on the list

and as for commuter schools here is the 2018 number of beds on campus for the emerging research universities in Texas

2018 Enrollment Beds On Campus % of Enrollment
Texas Tech University 38,246 8,178 21.38

The University of Texas at Arlington 42,496 8,955 21.07

The University of Texas at Dallas 28,755 5,543 19.28

Texas State University 38,661 6,725 17.39

University of North Texas 38,154 6,205 16.26

The University of Texas at San Antonio 32,101 4,148 12.92

The University of Texas at El Paso 25,151 988 3.93


so UTA and UTD have the 2nd and 3rd highest number of dorm rooms on campus relative to enrollment

(07-07-2019 09:26 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  ... U ate a cute commuter school servicing the locals.

Oh the humanity!

(07-07-2019 09:26 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  The ****** north texas talk is so boring. No one and I mean no one outside of the north texas campus could tell you wherever the hell north texas university is located. Just stop. U ate a cute commuter school servicing the locals.

Well, we could talk Tulane football. Is Tulane building anything, growing attendance, or handing out a sizable raise to their football coach?

Hate North Texas if you want, but we have an enrollment of over 38,000 and are the only FBS public university located in a region with over 5,000,000 people. With the way North Texas is developing athletics, you will probably have to hear more talk about UNT.

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

(07-07-2019 07:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 09:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You are right. Large public universities can displace the costs, and we do have a larger alumni base to tap for funds.

I, like the North Texas administration, view football and basketball as marketing for the university.

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.

(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:  

(07-06-2019 09:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You are right. Large public universities can displace the costs, and we do have a larger alumni base to tap for funds.

I, like the North Texas administration, view football and basketball as marketing for the university.

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

(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:  

(07-06-2019 09:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You are right. Large public universities can displace the costs, and we do have a larger alumni base to tap for funds.

I, like the North Texas administration, view football and basketball as marketing for the university.

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.

(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

(07-07-2019 01:53 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(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:  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

Do you even support a university?

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would argue the numbers are relative.

If you have a student body of 10K and you're running a $20M deficit then that's a serious issue. If you've got a student body of 30K or greater and you're running the same deficit then it's not as big an issue because you're spreading the cost over more students and you're more likely to have a larger donor base in the future to cover long term costs.

I wouldn't count on a lot of the G5 privates making it in the long haul. As selective as they have to be, it doesn't pay very much to drop a lot of money on exposing your brand to new students.

I think you make a great point. We have seen recently the financial issues at Tulsa. Being the smallest school in D1 you would expect Tulsa might be the first school to give up on the arms race. However, I would imagine Tulane, SMU and many others may soon follow suit.

Personally, I would like to see private schools lead the way in returning some sanity to college sports.

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

(07-07-2019 09:26 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  The ****** north texas talk is so boring. No one and I mean no one outside of the north texas campus could tell you wherever the hell north texas university is located. Just stop. U ate a cute commuter school servicing the locals.

Well, we could talk Tulane football. Is Tulane building anything, growing attendance, or handing out a sizable raise to their football coach?

Hate North Texas if you want, but we have an enrollment of over 38,000 and are the only FBS public university located in a region with over 5,000,000 people. With the way North Texas is developing athletics, you will probably have to hear more talk about UNT.

Best of all, you have that funky sign on the old Fine Arts Theater building on the town square in Denton. The site has been in decline for a long time and might house a store-front church now. It probably never occurred to the sign's designer that his creation spells out FARTS in bold letters. I first saw it in 1961 while on a two-week geology field trip in the area, and it made a lasting impression. I believe it's still there after almost 60 years.

(07-07-2019 02:54 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would argue the numbers are relative.

If you have a student body of 10K and you're running a $20M deficit then that's a serious issue. If you've got a student body of 30K or greater and you're running the same deficit then it's not as big an issue because you're spreading the cost over more students and you're more likely to have a larger donor base in the future to cover long term costs.

I wouldn't count on a lot of the G5 privates making it in the long haul. As selective as they have to be, it doesn't pay very much to drop a lot of money on exposing your brand to new students.

I think you make a great point. We have seen recently the financial issues at Tulsa. Being the smallest school in D1 you would expect Tulsa might be the first school to give up on the arms race. However, I would imagine Tulane, SMU and many others may soon follow suit.

Personally, I would like to see private schools lead the way in returning some sanity to college sports.

Possibly. However, one thing to consider----Its often just a small group of very well heeled donors that even the playing field financially for many of these smaller private schools.

When the Big East football conference was formed, it was a separate entity from the rest of the conference. UConn and Villanova were given options to upgrade from 1-AA to 1-A and get automatic admission into the conference. UConn exercised their option. During those years, Miami, Rutgers, West Virginia and Virginia Tech became full members of the Big East. When Temple was expelled from the Big East, UConn essentially replaced the Owls.

Now, UConn made their upgrade assuming that Big East football would be stable. Unfortunately, that assumption was incorrect. If UConn did not have that Big East invite, I do not believe they would have ever made the jump to 1-A.

(07-07-2019 09:10 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  When the Big East football conference was formed, it was a separate entity from the rest of the conference. UConn and Villanova were given options to upgrade from 1-AA to 1-A and get automatic admission into the conference. UConn exercised their option. During those years, Miami, Rutgers, West Virginia and Virginia Tech became full members of the Big East. When Temple was expelled from the Big East, UConn essentially replaced the Owls.

Now, UConn made their upgrade assuming that Big East football would be stable. Unfortunately, that assumption was incorrect. If UConn did not have that Big East invite, I do not believe they would have ever made the jump to 1-A.

AAC should have not invited the west schools. There are east schools that could have moved up that are decent like Delaware, ODU, Richmond and others. Those types of schools may have satisfy the C.

(07-07-2019 09:32 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 09:10 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  When the Big East football conference was formed, it was a separate entity from the rest of the conference. UConn and Villanova were given options to upgrade from 1-AA to 1-A and get automatic admission into the conference. UConn exercised their option. During those years, Miami, Rutgers, West Virginia and Virginia Tech became full members of the Big East. When Temple was expelled from the Big East, UConn essentially replaced the Owls.

Now, UConn made their upgrade assuming that Big East football would be stable. Unfortunately, that assumption was incorrect. If UConn did not have that Big East invite, I do not believe they would have ever made the jump to 1-A.

AAC should have not invited the west schools. There are east schools that could have moved up that are decent like Delaware, ODU, Richmond and others. Those types of schools may have satisfy the C.

The Big East had a split between the football schools and the basketball schools. UConn made Big East football a pure Big East sponsored sport when they replaced Temple. The politics within the Big East at that time were very fragile. No faction had a super majority to get a bylaw change. The Big East was gridlocked at that time. Every expansion after the initial ACC raid was a reactionary move.

I think the problem between the past when the schools went into divisions in the old days before the split and today was the cost of sports including travel was much cheaper than they are today. That is why you are starting to see more schools moving up into FBS, FCS and D1 over all is an idea that should be looked at.
UC-San Diego would be an extra game in D1 with San Diego State and U. of San Diego. Gives an extra school in the home city and could cost travel cost down. Same thing with Bellarmine with Louisville. Dixie State adds another D1 close to home for the other D1 Utah schools. Merrimack adds another D1 school in the northeast.
Now, if the AAC wanted to help the overall conference to ease of cost on all parties? The east do have the worst travel expense being scattered around.
Delaware, Buffalo, Stony Brook, Dayton, VCU, UMass., Vermont, Richmond, ODU, Marshall, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee State, Appalachian State, UAB, College of Charleston, Georgia Southern, Southern Mississippi, Toledo, Ohio U., Chattanooga and Troy all would be excellent addition to the AAC to help ease the cost of spending. Even James Madison could have help. Being a far flung conference do add more to the spending on all the sports for the schools to spend on.

(07-07-2019 09:10 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  Now, UConn made their upgrade assuming that Big East football would be stable. Unfortunately, that assumption was incorrect. If UConn did not have that Big East invite, I do not believe they would have ever made the jump to 1-A.

Strictly speaking, UConn made the move because there was an expectation of a split coming and UConn wanted to go wherever Cuse, Pitt, and BC were going. The concern was that a non-football sponsoring conference couldn't maintain themselves above an A-10 level long-term, and football was upgraded as a way to (theoretically) protect basketball. Obviously it didn't go that way. The real question is whether UConn would have made that jump if they knew the Big East would stabilize the way it has post-split.

(07-08-2019 08:40 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 09:10 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  Now, UConn made their upgrade assuming that Big East football would be stable. Unfortunately, that assumption was incorrect. If UConn did not have that Big East invite, I do not believe they would have ever made the jump to 1-A.

Strictly speaking, UConn made the move because there was an expectation of a split coming and UConn wanted to go wherever Cuse, Pitt, and BC were going. The concern was that a non-football sponsoring conference couldn't maintain themselves above an A-10 level long-term, and football was upgraded as a way to (theoretically) protect basketball. Obviously it didn't go that way. The real question is whether UConn would have made that jump if they knew the Big East would stabilize the way it has post-split.

Their mistake was not making it in the early 90s when they first had the chance. They would have been in a better position when the ACC raids started happening.

(07-08-2019 10:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 08:40 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 09:10 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  Now, UConn made their upgrade assuming that Big East football would be stable. Unfortunately, that assumption was incorrect. If UConn did not have that Big East invite, I do not believe they would have ever made the jump to 1-A.

Strictly speaking, UConn made the move because there was an expectation of a split coming and UConn wanted to go wherever Cuse, Pitt, and BC were going. The concern was that a non-football sponsoring conference couldn't maintain themselves above an A-10 level long-term, and football was upgraded as a way to (theoretically) protect basketball. Obviously it didn't go that way. The real question is whether UConn would have made that jump if they knew the Big East would stabilize the way it has post-split.

Their mistake was not making it in the early 90s when they first had the chance. They would have been in a better position when the ACC raids started happening.

You mean, when the Big East started sponsoring football.

IIRC the concern expressed by Tranghese at the time was that the major football indies were getting absorbed by major conferences (Penn State to the Big Ten and Florida State to the ACC had been announced) and that the Big East would eventually lose 'Cuse, Pitt, and BC if the conference didn't have football.

Given that those three eventually left anyway, wonder how it would have went if, instead of getting into the football business, the Big East would have just added a few more no-football members in the early 1990s so that they would have more than enough to keep going if/when the three football members left.