CaribbeanGreen

I need convincing. Let me preface by saying how much i love this school and this team; I graduated in 2002 after 3 1/2 years covering the team with NTTV. Worked in South Florida for several years, and now I'm back finishing a second bachelor's and starting my graduate work, all at NT. Wouldn't have it any other way. I've been on record as having a dissenting opinion regarding Darrell Dickey and the early 2000's teams, and I admit I may have some bias there.... yet I've been caught up in the Dodgeball wave, trying to give it the benefit of the doubt, trying to keep a positive attitude. When people here and elsewhere say "Dodge is gonna turn this around!" and talk about how young we are or any other excuse du jour, I generally try to buy into it, logic be damned. Tonight, though, I have to come clean as to my concerns. I need to be convinced again. I need to believe this can be fixed by this staff. Disclaimer: I'm never going to stop going to games and turn on this team. Ever. I'm just frustrated and need convincing. So.. that being said... What makes Todd Dodge qualified to BE here, much less fix this mess? There's trepidation enough tied to hiring a high school coach to lead a D1 program. The road is littered with failures, it never works, etc. etc. Forgetting the Gerry Faust was completely dominant at the HS level, I went along with the theory that Dodge was so good at SLC, he must be able to transfer that to the Sun Belt level for sure, common sense and history be damned. I've been to many SLC games over the years. Let me tell you something... my grandmother could coach SLC to 8 wins a year, and she's dead. It's a built in program, from grade school up. All the teams are the Dragons. They all run the same system. All little kids want to do is be a Dragon or cheer for the Dragons... and it's ridiculously affluent, with every advantage other school's don't have. It's Highland Park with a more rabid fan base. SLC is 244-39 in the last 20 years. They've won 7 state titles, and appeared 8 times. They had a 72-game winning streak that spanned 7 years from 1986-1993. The coach between Ledbetter and Dodge was let go after completing the transition from 3A up to the top level, taking his bumps along the way getting up to 5A -- and he was still 12 games over .500. 12!!! Wasson lost a couple last year (one to the #1 team in the nation), but is undefeated again this year. I'm not doubting that what Dodge did at SLC was impressive -- it surely was. But CARROLL WINS. ALWAYS HAVE, ALWAYS WILL until the climate changes. No one loses at Southlake Carroll. Again, we're comparing this to DIVISION ONE football. Before coming to Southlake Carroll, Todd Dodge coached at Cameron Yoe, Newman Smith, and Fossil Ridge for 5 seasons. Over those 5 seasons, he was a combined 11 GAMES UNDER .500. Suddenly, he arrived at Southlake Carroll, with all the tradition, history, resources, and athletes that come with it, and he's a great coach. Just like that. His spread was ahead of its time at the high school level, where sophisticated pass defenses didn't exist, and it was the perfect situation. Again, he was 11 games under 500 over 5 years... in high school. Somehow, the same offense and same philosophy that didn't work at Yoe, NS, or FR clicked at Carroll. SO.... these are my concerns. An offense that will surprise no one at this level, the inability to outathlete or overwhelm people with smarts and ability like at Carroll, and thus far, an abject FAILURE in each and every aspect of job performance, except crowd levels -- which, by the way, grew exponentially once tailgating was allowed and the game day experienced changed -- which I feel makes a bigger difference than Dodge did. If we had the same game day scene when we were winning 26 straight conference games, which most schools never DREAM of doing -- well, I believe we'd have had even bigger crowds. Thanks to Craig MF'n Helwig. We've had players leave the program. We've had controversies on the news, epic blowouts, bad PR moves, inept defense, inept special teams, poorly handled demotions, and we're outcoached EVERY WEEK. It's an abortion of the highest order. Why do you have faith in THIS coach to fix it? Everything we've seen is the sign of someone completely over their head on every level. What can he do? Again, nothing would make me happier than to see him succeed. I'm just reaching, here. I don't get it. I need convincing.

Dodge's name isn't mentioned in that article once. Yes, he went up to Mizzou, I know that... but trust me -- The Missouri Tigers did not have a high school coach from Texas come "install a new offense" for them and go back home. Dodge shared some insight, sure.. but that's it.

Likewise. After being beaten by trying to post on this board via crappy cell phone, I raised the white flag in the early 3rd. That wasn't even football. That was a joke. That was FIU, people. Not K-St (who kinda sucks), not LSU, not Tulsa, not even freaking RICE (who kinds sucks). That was the worst team in D1 since their existence. That was the WORST OFFENSE in D1. Whipping us like we didn't deserve to be on the same field... IN OUR HOUSE. There are no positives. There are no bright spots. This is the lowest point in NT Football history. PERIOD..... until Western Kentucky (who hung in with VaTech today) whips our ass at their place next month.

That? That ain't Dodge's offense. Look at Mizzou use the hell out of the TE. Run the ball effectively from multiple sets. Spend more time running plays than staring at the sideline. Dodge's high school QB, yeah.... his offense? No. No more than Mike Leach's or June Jones' or Hal Mumme's.

we will never win 26 straight league games again. ever. most schools NEVER will. Those were the halcyon days of this program. i will never badmouth any of the NT legends who brought it to us.

was the worst in all of div 1 coming into today, with less than 200 yards per game. amazing. they have exceeded that by the early 2nd. HELP.

1) stadium vote passes. 2) we win at least one game. 3) in conference losses, with two exceptions maximum we are competitive (i.e., lose by less than three scores). 4) The defense holds three opponents under 30. Would I have called this a success before the season?? You've gotta be kidding me.... but based on where we are now, I would be pleasantly surprised with these results heading into year 3 of The Todd Dodge Experience.

I'll start by saying I support Dodge 100%, which should go without saying. In my book, he gets at least 3 full years, 4 if there's even the slightest bit of progress by the third year. By year four, we should be no less than "knocking on the door." It should be noted that saying Dodge should be held accountable and holding him to task is NOT the same as calling of his head. Frankly, despite this history making disaster of a start, I've seen little to no demanding he get the axe. You'd see a LOT more if we were a BCS program, that's for sure. I think that as far as irrational marginally informed fan bases go, we're a pretty patient, low-expectations group. Anyway, it's entirely possible to support Dodge 100%, want to see this thing through, and at the same time hold him accountable for the state of the program. That's where I stand. With that, I'll pull an awesome and repost myself for the second time this week: So, let me see if i understand, based on posts on this thread (and many over the past few months)... ... the administration/AD is the root of the problem. Without adequate commitment and support, we can't compete on a high level and the best we can hope for is mediocrity (which i'm sure we'd all accept right now). ... there's also the generally accepted belief that this recent administration (Pohl/Bataille/RV), despite their shortcomings, is head and shoulders above the previous one (Hurley/Helwig), which paid less, had significantly worse facilities, zero game day atmosphere or promotion, and was basically inferior on every level. ... TTG's research on the latest TY Sports blog bears out what many of us felt was the case all along -- relative to other conferences in the FBS, The Belt has arguably gotten only slightly better if at all, and statistically had its best year in 2002. Statistics bear out the only significant improvement is at the very bottom of the standings, and even if you assume the conference HAS improved as a whole, you have to concede what a razor-thin improvement its been... and based on our OOC record staying stagnant (and never as good as 2002), you would have to argue that every single conference has improved as much as you claim the Belt has in that time, a virtual impossibility. So... if the conference is marginally better if at all, the current administration is better than the last one by a mile yet still the biggest hindrance to today's team, and in this DRASTICALLY improved climate (great game day atmosphere, bigger salaries, new state of the art athletic center, etc.) "the best we can hope for is mediocrity"... then, quite simply, explain the unprecedented, best in school history, ass-kicking, skull cracking, top 10 ranked defense, back to back national rushing champions, 26-straight conference wins, 4 straight conference championships we just rolled off four short years ago.... yet Dodge may have "to go somewhere else to have success" because he's so hamstrung here??? Really?? I've always said I'll never minimize that team and those accomplishments. That was the best we've ever seen, and I'll bet dollars to donuts it's the best we ever will see. It's a hell of a lot better than most schools have EVER seen. Something doesn't add up here. It's why I keep a relatively low profile around here (much better for my blood pressure and my SARS), and some perspective is needed. Still, as always, hard as it may be at times, GMG!

So, let me see if i understand, based on posts on this thread (and many over the past few months)... ... the administration/AD is the root of the problem. Without adequate commitment and support, we can't compete on a high level and the best we can hope for is mediocrity (which i'm sure we'd all accept right now). ... there's also the generally accepted belief that this recent administration (Pohl/Bataille/RV), despite their shortcomings, is head and shoulders above the previous one (Hurley/Helwig), which paid less, had significantly worse facilities, zero game day atmosphere or promotion, and was basically inferior on every level. ... TTG's research on the latest TY Sports blog bears out what many of us felt was the case all along -- relative to other conferences in the FBS, The Belt has arguably gotten only slightly better if at all, and statistically had its best year in 2002. Statistics bear out the only significant improvement is at the very bottom of the standings, and even if you assume the conference HAS improved as a whole, you have to concede what a razor-thin improvement its been... and based on our OOC record staying stagnant (and never as good as 2002), you would have to argue that every single conference has improved as much as you claim the Belt has in that time, a virtual impossibility. So... if the conference is marginally better if at all, the current administration is better than the last one by a mile yet still the biggest hindrance to today's team, and in this DRASTICALLY improved climate (great game day atmosphere, bigger salaries, new state of the art athletic center, etc.) "the best we can hope for is mediocrity"... then, quite simply, explain the unprecedented, best in school history, ass-kicking, skull cracking, top 10 ranked defense, back to back national rushing champions, 26-straight conference wins, 4 straight conference championships we just rolled off four short years ago.... yet Dodge may have "to go somewhere else to have success" because he's so hamstrung here??? Really?? I've always said I'll never minimize that team and those accomplishments. That was the best we've ever seen, and I'll bet dollars to donuts it's the best we ever will see. It's a hell of a lot better than most schools have EVER seen. Something doesn't add up here. It's why I keep a relatively low profile around here (much better for my blood pressure and my SARS), and some perspective is needed. Still, as always, hard as it may be at times, GMG!

We need the cupboard post, TTG. Pronto.

Bingo. There was a thread about this a few days ago -- while i agree much of what Stebo's post said, the FWST blog is misleading at BEST.

Quoting myself from the prediction thread (cocky?), because I think FIU's previous 0'fers are meaningless to this season: FIU so far this season has put up 10 at Kansas, 0 against Iowa, 9 against South Florida, and then 35 for their lone win over Toledo. They held a damn good USF team to 17 and came within a score of the upset in the opener of their new stadium, so they CAN play a little defense... in their first two games Kansas and Iowa both hung 40+ on them, but since then they held USF to 17 and Toledo to 16 -- so against closer competition, they've been competitive. In fact, Toledo had put up 54 and 41 points respectively in the previous two weeks against ranked Fresno St. and E. Michigan. BUT -- even though they finally broke out and put up 35 on Toledo, they only threw the ball 13 times for 98 yards, while running it 45 times for 141. Not the best output, but they'll control the clock. Paul McCall, their starting QB, has 1 TD to 5 INTs. Reams and Ned, their two headed backfield, both have over 40 carries yet neither one averages more than 3.3 per carry. They were +4 in the turnover column with Toledo, and that's how they won... they were down 13-0 in the first quarter, and then the Rockets started giving the ball away. They were -1 against Kansas and Iowa, and even against USF -- so, it's safe to say they play conservatively and don't make many mistakes. Basically, if there is an offense we have a prayer in slowing down all year, this is the one. That's not to say we'll win -- FIU plays a little defense and generally doesn't make many mistakes -- but they are HORRIBLY vanilla, low-output, and devoid of big plays on offense. This will really show us how bad it is or isn't for DeLoach's boys.

based on?

FIU so far this season has put up 10 at Kansas, 0 against Iowa, 9 against South Florida, and then 35 for their lone win over Toledo. They held a damn good USF team to 17 and came within a score of the upset in the opener of their new stadium, so they CAN play a little defense... in their first two games Kansas and Iowa both hung 40+ on them, but since then they held USF to 17 and Toledo to 16 -- so against closer competition, they've been competitive. In fact, Toledo had put up 54 and 41 points respectively in the previous two weeks against ranked Fresno St. and E. Michigan. BUT -- even though they finally broke out and put up 35 on Toledo, they only threw the ball 13 times for 98 yards, while running it 45 times for 141. Not the best output, but they'll control the clock. Paul McCall, their starting QB, has 1 TD to 5 INTs. Reams and Ned, their two headed backfield, both have over 40 carries yet neither one averages more than 3.3 per carry. They were +4 in the turnover column with Toledo, and that's how they won... they were down 13-0 in the first quarter, and then the Rockets started giving the ball away. They were -1 against Kansas and Iowa, and even against USF -- so, it's safe to say they play conservatively and don't make many mistakes. Basically, if there is an offense we have a prayer in slowing down all year, this is the one. That's not to say we'll win -- FIU plays a little defense and generally doesn't make many mistakes -- but they are HORRIBLY vanilla, low-output, and devoid of big plays on offense. This will really show us how bad it is or isn't for DeLoach's boys.

Great stuff as always.... as you might imagine, though, I'm salivating over the forthcoming entry. And your quads.

FIU - 45 UNT - 24 17,500 att.

rcade, just interested in your perspective on why it would be a good idea... We've heard the 2002 case study examples, the first hand testimony of that disaster, the pulse of the current student body's climate -- but I'm genuinely curious what an alumni ad would be expected to gain for the cause. We know the negative it could bring, so what's the potential positive impact? Is it the anticipation that an ad placed by alumni would sway a few votes that were that undecided and were unmoved by student or AD advertising/information, or is it a way for alumni to feel involved in such an important process without any real positive impact?? Again, I'm thrilled with your desire to help -- we could use a few thousand more alumni like you. If we had that, we wouldn't have to put this on the students in the first place. I'm just wondering if there's not a more effective way to help.

Guess where my fiance went to school? Just guess. FIU. She was at their first ever football game. Please, pray for me.

No pipeline formed at SLC as we heard would happen, and I'm not talking about "ratings" here. The first class or two was the ONLY time we would see recruiting based off of Dodge's high school success. After that point, kids don't care what he did at Southlake -- show me what you're doing now. There's concrete evidence of that. I don't know what relationships opened what doors for Dodge in past recruiting, but that's done now (and I question it was ever there to start with, not to the extent we believed). The ratings on the field are all I care about, and those speak for themselves so far. We DID get a pipeline to Beebe-esque receivers I suppose, so that's nice. Just wish we weren't so thin at that position.

Thing is, we can all feel slighted and upset that we're being advised to keep quiet, but the fact of the matter comes down to RESULTS. How many minds do you think an ad in the Daily will change? What's the potential for positive impact? We know the potential for negative impact -- The Daily's agenda, campaign laws, energizing an apathetic "against" movement. Hell, we have EVIDENCE of what happened last time at Bruce Hall -- the "For" group specifically energized and motivated the "against" group to go win the election. I'm asking for an honest assessment of the positive impact here. IMHO, Flyer is right. He's been right every step of the way so far. I don't care about how I feel, about who gets to contribute what, about what "message" is sent... We HAVE to win this. Whatever it takes. Get the Greeks completely onboard, however you can. Get every athlete you can to vote. HAMMER the "for" group on facebook with links to the online voting page. Go viral on "friendlies" via social networking/e-mail lists. But don't shove it in "against's" faces. Here's our chance to use the famous NT apathy to our ADVANTAGE for once. What's the old political strategy?? Moderates have never won anybody an election? Go for your BASE. Energize them. That's easier for us to do, and that will win this election. We can shout all we want about what we've put in as alumni, and i know as individuals most of us here have been good alums, who have given plenty and supported as much as possible.... but as a whole, NT alumni failed. It's out of our hands. We couldn't raise near the jack needed to BEGIN to fund this, and our apathy (again, as a whole, not anyone here) exceeds that on campus. That's why we have to even take this ridiculous step. Just win, baby.

FIU 45 NT 24

but what have those connections netted us? The biggest disappointment to me is that there was no pipeline. We'd heard so much about it, and it never materialized... at this point, if Dodge turns it around, it will be based on his own work and merits exclusively, and not on his connections or imagined "pipeline"...

Okay... I was initially enamored by the spread when Mike Leach and Hal Mumme rolled it out at Kentucky. It seemed like fast break football, like the run-n-shoot and the west coast offense had a lovechild (with much bigger OL splits). Being a copycat game if there ever was one, soon enough the spread made its way through college playbooks across the country -- from Hawaii to New Mexico State to Tulsa. From there, high schools across the country -- even in traditional run-first Texas -- began spreading it out. I saw an instant comparison between the spread and the offense I ran in high school in the late 90's -- the triple option. Both offenses are gimmicky, both have a 80%+ dependence on the pass or run, both can help compensate for a lack of raw talent with scheme (see Navy, Hawaii, etc.), both have to be specifically gameplanned for and are defended differently than conventional offenses, both are all about assignments & spacing... and of course, neither could ever be run successfully the the pros. The triple option is still effective in elevating talent above its natural level to be more competitive -- yet now its seldom run with big time athletes, and it eventually fell out of favor with the majority of schools that ran it as it was gradually solved by defenses and its limitations (playing from behind) became more obvious. Now, as the spread is run with more and more frequency, the gimmick of no-huddles and WR screens isn't as surprising as it once was. Sure, there's still plenty of success in the college ranks with it, and if a high school can run it well it's assured a winning season -- but the clock is ticking here, isn't it? More and more defenses know how to defend it, and it can suddenly appear basic and predictable when it's not crisply run. Not to mention, how much of an affect does this offense have on a defense?? Let's focus on NT here - I know our D is terrible, but it can't be getting any favors when you consider the complete lack of the long drive. We generally score quickly or punt quickly - period. Everything is sped up, no huddle, pass pass pass, and the D is back on the field. I have no doubt that a big part of the DeLoach defense Version 1 was helped to be as good as it was by DD's grind it out, control the clock offense - is the defense's potential severely limited by this offense, even when it's going well? What true spread teams have had good defenses? I'm not talking the Texas/Florida/WVU zone-read spreads -- those are basically pro style or even run first offenses out of a shotgun formation -- but the true spread. Seems like spread teams -- TTU, Rice, Hawaii, etc. -- generally have below average defenses.

Said it then, I'll say it now. Closer to statue than pink slip. I heart you.

agree. if this gets voted down, we don't deserve a new stadium. Or sports in general. Two different generations of students will have voted it down. An ineffective and apathetic alumni base unable to generate funds or interest for the project. A department unable to land a big donor. No thanks. Of course, I hope like hell it passes, and by a huge margin.