You bring up many good points. However, the game of college football is evolving. If you look around the country right now, there are a ton of other programs similar to Tech and in the same situation. The balance of power is shifting in every conference — though the storied programs are ahead, but they are looking in their rear view mirrors. Some of the great programs are suddenly now in the tank; Notre Dame has gone nowhere the last 7, 8 years.

My point is this year we are heading in the right direction. 10-1 Record, Expansion of facilities, 4-star recruits (Blake from Austin comes to mind), fan/alumni interest, and possibly locking up the head coach for many years to come. I feel as a fan that as long as the program continues to move forward, we will be patient with NC’s and Conference titles. They will come. I’m a realist but more and more I see our program the sleeping giant that just awoken.

Honestly, we’re better situated right now overall than I expected at the start, which is a good sign of improvement. If we can hang onto Leach I think we continue to improve. We’re at a disadvantage, for sure, but North teams have won the conference recently and we can too. Five years ago we’d have been thrilled by wins over UT and A&M, and we were happy for that, but the fact that we (the fans) can be this disappointed by our first loss of the season (after 10 straight wins) shows how far we’ve come. We’re building the program and if we stay on course I’m optimistic. Also, I agree with Tech92 that were not out of it yet for this year. We don’t control our own fate and odds are not good, but the season’s not done for us yet.

I see where we might still have a shot at the conference title game, but it won’t be like we won it. We’d be backing into it. Not that I would pass on the opportunity, but it’s not the same as being an elite team.

Nothing would please me more than if 43 5-star players showed up next year. But it would be a miracle given the odds against us.

I hope you’re right, wreckraider. It’s just that I’ve been waiting a long, long time and nothing has ever changed but the names.

has been a key factor in helping all the smaller schools get some notice. A decade ago it was always the same powerhouses playing on the same channels week after week. With better regional coverage with FSN, ESPN, and other networks, we have a chance to see so many more teams on a weekly basis. Think about how much having a weekly Thursday night game helped the Big East and the ACC, most notably Virginia Tech. Having recruits actually getting a chance to watch games at home lets them know that they don’t have to go to a powerhouse to be noticed.

Is it just me or were the t-shirt fans from OU leaps and bounds worse than the t-shirt fans from UT? I’ve never been so shocked in my life. I was kind of happy though as it gave me ample opportunities to laugh during the game. Can anyone explain why t-shirt fans feel they can talk more trash than students/alumni from the actual school? I don’t understand this mentality.

I’m not saying we aren’t taking the baby steps Seth talked about in his piece yesterday. We are improving and our talent base is getting better. Slowly but surely. And the expanded TV coverage will help level the playing field a little bit both with finances and recruiting/exposure like Kevin said. But my point was that we have been ‘improving’ for the last 45 years and we’re still sucking a hind tit.

I really thought limiting the scholarships a team could offer would change the face of the game back in the 70’s. When the big schools used to show up with 100 scholarship players on the other sideline, it was pretty discouraging. Hell, they were even giving scholarships just to keep a kid from going to an opponent school. The new limits did help a little bit, but that obviously was not the major contributor to the disparity between the big boys and the rest of us.

I’ve never been an insider to college finances or athletic departments, but I can’t help but conclude that money is the missing factor. That recent article in CNN-SI showed that UT’s athletic revenue is over $50 million a year, or about average for the big boys. Tech’s athletic revenues are about $17 million. We’ve both spent about the same on football over the last 5 years – about $15 mil per – but that’s about 90 of our available funds while it’s just pocket change to UT. There is no way I can see for us to sustain that level of spending without virtually abandoning the rest of athletics. It would take land grant kind of money to keep up with the big boys over the long haul. They’ve got that and we don’t.

NM99 is correct about alumni helping out the program. One of ours just gave us $1 million in matching funds to help with the stadium upgrade, for instance. But once again we’re behind the power curve. For every one alum we’ve spit out over the last 50 years, UT has spit out two. The ratio may be marginally better now, but we still lose ground every year in terms of the number of people we can look to. It’s that whole rich get richer thing.

I’m not preaching doom and gloom, but more of a long term reality check. Success begets success. A good season will attract better talent, which gives you more success, which draws more talent, ad infinitum. Same thing applies to the alumni’s willingness to donate to the program. So I do see an improvement curve in our favor. I just have my doubts that it will ever be enough to take us to the big school level – not without land grant money.