(01-01-2024 02:18 PM)TUowl06 Wrote:  In my travels Temple has often misidentified as a private, religiously affiliated institution.

Yeah. Folks aren't really wrong about the private thing when they're a Commonwealth school. They aren't the same kind of "public" as, say, West Chester is. But, they are most certainly not Lancaster Bible College or Messiah University.

Back to a potential sleeping giant...Utah State.

After watching the bowl season, every school in G5 is a sleeping giant. G5s need to improve a lot to be competitive at the top level.

(01-01-2024 10:49 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-01-2024 08:23 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-01-2024 01:29 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(12-27-2023 01:07 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Texas State has the 107th FBS FB budget, the 115th largest athletic budget of 129 reporting schools (Army, Navy, AF do not report budgets to US Dept of Education). There are literally 50 G5 schools with larger overall budgets, and almost 40 with FB only larger budgets.

That is a very steep hill to climb, when schools like South Florida, Memphis, Colorado State and Temple have budgets more than twice, in many sports nearly triple. That is a huge amount of annual revenue to be in the top tier of G5, close to $450M over the coming decade. Get your check book ready, triple your donations to Bobcat athletics to match.

Good luck.

Colorado St
ate is a land grant, and therefore more well-known in Colorado & neighboring states compared to Texas State in Texas, IMO.

Memphis is an "unspoken" HBCU, IMO. It's not an official HBCU, but it functions like one. Bill Dazzle alluded to this in the past, if I'm not mistaken. And if there's one thing HBCU's know how to do well, it is raise money, IMO.

That leaves USF & Temple. USF makes sense because the city of Tampa is enjoying interest in its pro sports teams and a desire to make Tampa the next, improved "Miami."

Temple is in a weird position as a part-private, part-public university. Because of this unique status, Temple has access to resources that Texas State doesn't have.

If I've ever posted referring to Memphis as a "de facto HBCU," then I must have been boozing, Dawg.

What I have noted — on multiple occasions — is that the Memphis Tiger football and basketball (and particularly the latter) fan base offers far more Black fans (relatively speaking) than most other schools with FBS football.

Just wanted to clarify.

Happy New Year!

Glad you cleared that up Bill D!!

Yes, indeed, Dawg.

There are a lot of G5s with tons of potential. I think UTEP has a ton of potential. We control the majority of our market, great stadium and decent basketball arena. Facilities need some updating. If Walden can get us winning, UTEP will get back to selling out the Sun bowl (~45k).

But Texas State, UNT, UTSA, UNLV can all set themselves up for further movement in conference realignment.

(12-30-2023 10:32 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(12-30-2023 10:18 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2023 09:59 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(12-30-2023 09:15 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2023 10:17 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  The story for most G5 schools, big state U or Us control the markets even the ones the G5 schools lives in.

UNT is the "big state U" in Dallas/Fort Worth. TCU & SMU are small private schools.

I think he means Whorn and BAggie

Even without them, UNT is an afterthought in DFW. If it was situated in Dallas proper, especially where SMU is(which is University Park proper but stay with me here, you get the point) or in one of the boom burbs to the north like Plano or Frisco, it'd be a much bigger deal.

Texas State is located in Hayes County, which has a population of around 240,000 people. That's not impressive.

By comparison, UNT is located in Denton County, which has a population of around 1,000,000 people. UNT doesn't need to rely on the populations of Dallas or Fort Worth to flex our strength. We have plenty of students and alums within a 15-minute drive from campus. UNT just needs to get serious and build a real winner. North Texas is a true sleeping giant.

First off, you list Texas State's county's population as if no one else lives in shouting distance. It's on the freeway between two major, fast growing cities. Sure, both have college teams of their own, especially the 800 pound gorilla known "affectionately" to UH fans as Whorn but they can draw fans from both areas and all over the state, as it sits at the western edge of the state's population core, not far from most of the state's population centers.

North Texas also sounds more regional while a name like Texas State sounds more inclusive for all the state's residents.

He is using old numbers as well. Hays County is 266K+ now, not to mention surrounding counties are all growing at 3% every year. The whole area is blowing up. Hardly any real estate between SA and Austin along 35 that’s not already being built on.

Correct on sounding more regional. Unt fans are upset SWT was able to an achieve Texas State name change with much more ease than they were. They are nervous about our 1 good year and “passing them up”
Unt was the reason TXST didn’t get invited to CUSA with utsa when the WAC fell apart and the reason we didn’t get invited to the Sunbelt until they had announced their departure from SBC.

(12-31-2023 10:14 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I feel Texas State, North Texas and Texas-San Antonio all offer strong potential. Each has its plusses and minuses, and I perceive each as about equal in overall athletics in terms of current status and long-term potential.

As to North Texas, it is never a positive to have a "directional name" related to marketing/branding/public perception. And as a graduate of Middle Tennessee State University ... I have seen this first-hand.

However, and on a positive note, North Texas is much like South Florida (USF) and Central Florida (UCF) in that 1. it is located sufficiently near Dallas to loosely be perceived as Dallas' "public university"; and 2. it has a level of academic chops that most "directional schools" do not. The University of North Texas can be a semi-player on the national athletics and academics seen. I wish UNT well.

But in contrast, USF and UCF are "the schools" in their respective cities. North Texas will always play second fiddle to SMU, just like Middle Tennessee State will always be considered inferior (in terms of location, history, league affiliation, athletics and academics) to Vanderbilt. UNT will never be able to "escape" that perception. UTSA and Texas State simply don't have that negative association. Over time, UTSA will be perceived as "San Antonio's team," while Texas State can be its own animal, offering a different kind of brand/perception.

UCF still made it to the big boy table but I’ve always wondered if they would have gotten their a little sooner if they had never changed name from Florida Tech to UCF.

(12-29-2023 01:17 AM)TUowl06 Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 11:15 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(12-27-2023 04:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  Potential among non-P4s in Texas
UTSA
UTEP


Texas St.
North Texas
Rice
Sam Houston St.

And if you were to guess who would win the most football titles over the next 10 years, I might put my money on Rice 2nd after UTSA. Rice has the resources. They may not have the potential to be as consistently strong, but they have the resources to avoid being consistent cellar dwellers at the G5 level.

San Marcos is too small. Its in the Austin metro area. And its usually a school of 2nd or 3rd choice, so you often have people with pre-existing alliegances who don't let go of them.

FYI Texas State is most applied to university in the State of Texas now and has been last 2 years. Popularity is only going up.

Sounds like Texas State has been able to evolve in a rather transcended manner without the aid of a nationally relevant intercollegiate athletic program. My guess is the key stakeholders (as well as those in higher ed) are quite proud of this accomplishment. Much more so than the exploits of the football team in 2023. The former also suggests the Bobcat athletics will remain "properly" positioned within the entire Texas higher education system as political and social forces see fit.

R1 status is now the next priority.....

Yes that has become a priority. The push is to become R1 by 2027. Just added 11 new doctorates mostly if not all STEM related. One doctorate in nurse practitioner so makes me wonder if we’re going to make a push for a medical school eventually. I’d like to see a medical or Law school in our future.

(12-29-2023 10:49 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 11:37 PM)C2__ Wrote:  I think so. They're a large, centrally located (within Texas) school with improving academics, a growing alumni base and growing school pride. Their name screams major "university" to me.

If they can start recruiting better and winning more games and conference championships, they be a force to be reconned* with and certainly look the part of a major conference team.

I like Texas State and hope they go big time.

The Bobcats represent a refreshing change from... lots of things.

I like this guy. Seems pretty smart and intelligent

(01-02-2024 07:14 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  UCF still made it to the big boy table but I’ve always wondered if they would have gotten their a little sooner if they had never changed name from Florida Tech to UCF.

Come on, It took the right amount of tectonic shifts in other conferences and musical chairs to go along with Uckph's explosive growth as an institution and solid play on the field (including a truly mythical national championship as well as a BCS Bowl win and an NCAA Tournament win) to get where they are today. Had they stayed as Florida Tech, it would have taken the same factors.

They, for example, wouldn't have been picked over USF for the Big East's Florida spot in 2003-04 even if they had been named Florida Tech at the time (although I think the 0-12 season also had something to do with that).

But Uckph is so late in the game that making a power conference only 30 or so years after reaching D-I would have been difficult even if its name was The University of Florida or Florida State.

Now as far as marketing goes, they missed a chance, as they could have asked to be a branch campus of the University of Florida and gone by the acronym UFO and they could have changed their nickname to the Aliens. Not sure if Florida allows that, as I'm not aware of the University of Florida having a branch campus but that would be catchy.

(01-02-2024 07:42 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 07:14 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  UCF still made it to the big boy table but I’ve always wondered if they would have gotten their a little sooner if they had never changed name from Florida Tech to UCF.

Come on, It took the right amount of tectonic shifts in other conferences and musical chairs to go along with Uckph's explosive growth as an institution and solid play on the field (including a truly mythical national championship as well as a BCS Bowl win and an NCAA Tournament win) to get where they are today. Had they stayed as Florida Tech, it would have taken the same factors.

They, for example, wouldn't have been picked over USF for the Big East's Florida spot in 2003-04 even if they had been named Florida Tech at the time (although I think the 0-12 season also had something to do with that).

But Uckph is so late in the game that making a power conference only 30 or so years after reaching D-I would have been difficult even if its name was The University of Florida or Florida State.

Now as far as marketing goes, they missed a chance, as they could have asked to be a branch campus of the University of Florida and gone by the acronym UFO and they could have changed their nickname to the Aliens. Not sure if Florida allows that, as I'm not aware of the University of Florida having a branch campus but that would be catchy.

I do not disagree with anything you said in regards to moving up, 0-12 season definitely hurt that scenario, but for other reasons mentioned earlier in this thread it’s more catchy or sounds more normal. More palatable to conference presidents and sounds better to the avg parent helping their hs kid decide where to go as opposed to a directional name.

No


54% grad rate
88% acceptence rate

Six years after enrolling, alumni who are working have average earnings of $38,300 per year. After ten years, graduates earn $49,200 on average.

NIL is going to kill a lot of schools.

1a) Liberty

1b) Rice

Both have a huge war chest to buy the players they need and in this day and age thats about the only thing it takes.

(01-02-2024 07:14 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(12-31-2023 10:14 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I feel Texas State, North Texas and Texas-San Antonio all offer strong potential. Each has its plusses and minuses, and I perceive each as about equal in overall athletics in terms of current status and long-term potential.

As to North Texas, it is never a positive to have a "directional name" related to marketing/branding/public perception. And as a graduate of Middle Tennessee State University ... I have seen this first-hand.

However, and on a positive note, North Texas is much like South Florida (USF) and Central Florida (UCF) in that 1. it is located sufficiently near Dallas to loosely be perceived as Dallas' "public university"; and 2. it has a level of academic chops that most "directional schools" do not. The University of North Texas can be a semi-player on the national athletics and academics seen. I wish UNT well.

But in contrast, USF and UCF are "the schools" in their respective cities. North Texas will always play second fiddle to SMU, just like Middle Tennessee State will always be considered inferior (in terms of location, history, league affiliation, athletics and academics) to Vanderbilt. UNT will never be able to "escape" that perception. UTSA and Texas State simply don't have that negative association. Over time, UTSA will be perceived as "San Antonio's team," while Texas State can be its own animal, offering a different kind of brand/perception.

UCF still made it to the big boy table but I’ve always wondered if they would have gotten their a little sooner if they had never changed name from Florida Tech to UCF.

If you use the same citeria as being used the directional name lead to the growth and quick rise of the university. We all know the name change did nothing but that seems to be the belief.

(12-27-2023 01:06 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(12-27-2023 12:28 PM)C2__ Wrote:  45 is so much better than 37. Gotcha...

So are we now pretending that $8M isn't significant?

its not significant when you dig into the reasons for the delta. UNT had ~$33MM of school subsidy, mostly from institutional funds, Texas State had ~$27MM. If the state of Texas allows schools to use school funds for athletics, Texas State could feasibly close the gap immediately with school funds. Add in an additional $6MM of schools funds to match UNTs subsidy and you're at $43MM vs UNT $44MM.

that could never happen in North Carolina where schools are very limited in how much school funds they can use towards athletics.

(01-02-2024 10:29 PM)shere khan Wrote:  No


54% grad rate
88% acceptence rate

Six years after enrolling, alumni who are working have average earnings of $38,300 per year. After ten years, graduates earn $49,200 on average.

NIL is going to kill a lot of schools.

if you think 54% grad rate and 88% acceptance rate are bad please don't look up Memphis #s

(01-02-2024 07:14 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(12-31-2023 10:14 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I feel Texas State, North Texas and Texas-San Antonio all offer strong potential. Each has its plusses and minuses, and I perceive each as about equal in overall athletics in terms of current status and long-term potential.

As to North Texas, it is never a positive to have a "directional name" related to marketing/branding/public perception. And as a graduate of Middle Tennessee State University ... I have seen this first-hand.

However, and on a positive note, North Texas is much like South Florida (USF) and Central Florida (UCF) in that 1. it is located sufficiently near Dallas to loosely be perceived as Dallas' "public university"; and 2. it has a level of academic chops that most "directional schools" do not. The University of North Texas can be a semi-player on the national athletics and academics seen. I wish UNT well.

But in contrast, USF and UCF are "the schools" in their respective cities. North Texas will always play second fiddle to SMU, just like Middle Tennessee State will always be considered inferior (in terms of location, history, league affiliation, athletics and academics) to Vanderbilt. UNT will never be able to "escape" that perception. UTSA and Texas State simply don't have that negative association. Over time, UTSA will be perceived as "San Antonio's team," while Texas State can be its own animal, offering a different kind of brand/perception.

UCF still made it to the big boy table but I’ve always wondered if they would have gotten their a little sooner if they had never changed name from Florida Tech to UCF.

I like the University of Orlando — but that was never going to be an option.

(01-02-2024 07:14 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(12-31-2023 10:14 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I feel Texas State, North Texas and Texas-San Antonio all offer strong potential.

As to North Texas, it is never a positive to have a "directional name" related to marketing/branding/public perception. And as a graduate of Middle Tennessee State University ... I have seen this first-hand.

UCF still made it to the big boy table but I’ve always wondered if they would have gotten their a little sooner if they had never changed name from Florida Tech to UCF.

UCF should have been University of Florida at Orlando. UFO for short.

(01-03-2024 08:45 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 07:14 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(12-31-2023 10:14 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I feel Texas State, North Texas and Texas-San Antonio all offer strong potential.

As to North Texas, it is never a positive to have a "directional name" related to marketing/branding/public perception. And as a graduate of Middle Tennessee State University ... I have seen this first-hand.

UCF still made it to the big boy table but I’ve always wondered if they would have gotten their a little sooner if they had never changed name from Florida Tech to UCF.

UCF should have been University of Florida at Orlando. UFO for short.

That would have been cool in terms of the name.

(01-02-2024 11:00 PM)RockyMTNTiger Wrote:  1a) Liberty

1b) Rice

Both have a huge war chest to buy the players they need and in this day and age thats about the only thing it takes.

SoCon and CAA knew all too well what Liberty could do, which was why they withstood them from conference membership. I don't think there's anything "asleep" about Liberty, especially now that their football has moved into FBS. I would say they've been obscured by conference politics in FCS, though.

Rice is just asleep.

(01-03-2024 08:45 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 07:14 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(12-31-2023 10:14 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I feel Texas State, North Texas and Texas-San Antonio all offer strong potential.

As to North Texas, it is never a positive to have a "directional name" related to marketing/branding/public perception. And as a graduate of Middle Tennessee State University ... I have seen this first-hand.

UCF still made it to the big boy table but I’ve always wondered if they would have gotten their a little sooner if they had never changed name from Florida Tech to UCF.

UCF should have been University of Florida at Orlando. UFO for short.

And its near Cape Canaveral. They could have the UFO Aerospace Engineering School!