The Fake Lonnie Finch

It's the most absurd way to go. Can you imagine the rich donors at various schools lamenting the travel aspect: Sooner fan: Gosh, we have to travel all the way to Baton Rouge just to see our football team try to advance to the national title game. I just don't think it's worth it. Longhorn fan: Yeah, well you think that's bad, our first round game is at home against Pitt. Those guys won't travel! How will we ever sell out DKR if the Panther fans don't show up? I mean App State fans won't even go to Montana for a game! Sooner fan: Agreed, these playoff were a huge mistake. How will the networks and ESPN ever get advertisers to buy into this thing if Pitt fans won't even travel to Austin for a weekend to support their school? What a mess! Longhorn fan: Well...it's 11:24...and OU still sucks! Sooner fan: Get back to me when you've got seven national titles and five Heisman Trophy winners...or, I'll cut you some slack...get back to me when you've had seven Big 12 titles and a third Heisman winner! Longhorn fan: So, see you at Barton Creek for a nine o'clock tee off? Sooner fan: Better make it one-ish; our jet will need time for maintenance after the trip back from Jackson Hole.

The bowls are good. It's a good, memorable trip for the kids involved (team, band, etc.). Sports talk douches aren't even part of the equation (thankfully). Why is anyone taking Craig Miller seriously about football anyway? He follows cycling. If there's a sport that's less exciting to watch than soccer, that's it - and Miller loves it. Find something real to be riled at Miller about: Like when he and Gordon talk about anything related to kids. Neither of the have any, so they always sound like idiots when they comment. They goad Jub Jub from time to time with the "what if this was your daughter, George" and "do you think when that baby was born, his parents had any idea that he would later yada yada yada." It's hard to be a parent, which is why those two narcissistic morons have skipped out on it.

"Actually, it doesn't work. Those playoffs lose money and must be supported by surplus revenues from the Final Four. When Appalachian State played at Montana last month, only a handful of App. State fans made the trek to Missoula, Mont. Similarly, playoff games would have to be played on college campus sites to ensure a crowd for rounds one through three." -Anti-playoff douche, former non-AQ AD, now at an AQ school Oh, so because Appalachian State fans don't travel well, FBS fans wouldn't. Oklahoma, USC, Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, etc. wouldn't sell out a game at their stadiums for a playoff? Give me a break. And, they wouldn't travel to see a playoff game? Give me another break. It's laughable to compare the economics of App State versus Montana to what an FBS playoff would generate in money and interest. So stupid. The arguments against a playoff get thinner and thinner by the year. This one is the stupidest yet.

MEMO: The multiple offese aren't going to be the wave of the future because...they're already here! We just don't have it at North Texas. We're behind the curve (again) because we're married to an offensive mindset that is just spread, spread, spread. Look: 2-10 1-11 2-10 Guys, we play in the Sun Belt. Not the SEC. Not the Big 12. We're not even fooling anyone in our own conference with what we run out there week in and week out. The spread isn't the rocket science that it was in the late 80s. Everyone's got a flag on the moon now, so you've got to look at other ways. Houston...this is Denton calling...we've got a problem.

Here's the deal - if you've got a good defense, you've got something. Even if your offense is the pits, a great defense will keep you competitive. Look at Nebraska this year. They came within a ball hair of being the Big 12 Champs and it had nothing to do with their offense. Bo Pelini took "another coach's players" and made a monster defense out of them. Same, really, with Texas and Oklahoma in the Big 12. Texas is ranked 80th in giving up sacks. And their run offense is non-existent. Yet, they are in the championship game because their defense breathes fire every last damn down of the game. Ditto Oklahoma. When Bradford went out, they had nine new starters on offense. It was up and down all year for them. Their defense had one hiccup game against Texas Tech, but the rest of the way they were nails from gun to gun in about every game. TCU and Boise State run up a bunch of points in their respectively crappy conferences. But, their real bread and butter is that their defenses will put your offense on ice. So, when they shut each other's offenses down, what was the difference? Boise State's defense came up with more plays. Texas and Alabama is going to be an absolute defensive dogfight to end all dogfights. It wouldn't shock me to see one or both starting QBs knocked out the game at some point. Those two defenses bring it on every play from every angle. They run like gazelles, hit like bulls, and cover like hawks. National Geographic should have a camera at this game.

No it isn't. They'd like for you to believe that so that they can have an excuse if the failure continues. What we need is a serious, college coach. People can bomb away at Darrell Dickey all they want, but he cold lost his starting QB in August of 2005 in an automobile accident, then had a heart attack midway through 2006. Those are real challenges. Not youth. Not "these are not my players" and other such nonsense long disproven by quick successes of many other coaches at many other schools year in and year out. Our latest, local example is SMU. Personally, I think Rick Villareal knows he's dug himself a hole in the hiring of Dodge. I'm convinced that Dr. B doesn't know enough about it one way or the other. If she did, she'd have already forced a move. There are dozens of coaches out there who would take this job and have us competitive from the gun. They wouldn't accept a wait, wait, wait attitude. No one else in the country is waits as long as we have been asked. Everyone else hires coaches who make their programs competitive. I've only been associated with North Texas as a student, grad, and donor since 1990. In that time, we've hired two high school coaches. I don't care what the circumstances are, that isn't an acceptable way to run a college football program. This thing isn't bigger than anyone. All it takes is for the people in charge to finally take it seriously.

Exactly. There was a stretch in the third quarter where Frog receivers dropped four or five passes in a row. There was also the sure TD dropped in the fourth quarter by #13. I also thought TCU's receivers didn't fight for some of the pass break ups/interceptions. Many times, the Frog receivers just stood in place while Dalton was being forced out of the pocket. It wasn't until late when one of their guys finally broke away during a scramble and gave him a better target. Still, it was a great defensive game for both sides. Fun to watch. Both sides were well-coached. Patterson's a good coach, but he looked uptight and the whole team looked uptight from the gun. Boise State has been there before and were more relaxed. Maybe TCU will get to that point as well.

Although, they can't disprove that we have our quarterback in the shotgun come hell or high water, which was the original point of the discussion. Many of us around here would like to see some real variety in the offense, such as you saw with Ohio State, Oklahoma, last night with Boise State, every other team in the country, etc., etc., etc.,

Good point on Koetter. I'd forgotten about him. Dennis Erickson is tanking Arizona State as his replacement there. I think that job and Wazzu will be open in the Pac-10 after next season. Also, it's hard to see Colorado doing much more with Nebraska back and everyone else holding steady. I think that job, another Mountain/Western time zone job, will be open. You just hope those Boise guys would still be around. Of course...all of this is pertinent only if Dodge has another 10 loss season...

Yes! Tight ends...and...with the ball inside the five and the game tied late...a running touchdown with a FULLBACK making the key block! I lobbied for Boise State's offensive or defensive coordinator to be hired for us. Both make less than Dodge. This job would be a pay raise for them. We should have ditched Dodge while we had the chance and at least talked to both of those guys.

In 14 seasons at Ole Miss and Auburn, Tuberville compiled a record of 110-60. He led nine of those 14 squads to bowl games. Whether at Ole Miss or Auburn, no squad of Tuberville ever gave up more than 281 points in a season - even in the three losing seasons he had over a 14 years stretch, those most points allowed in a losing season by a Tuberville-coached squad was 270. In 170 games as a head coach, no school ever scored 50 or more on a Tommy Tuberville coached team. Tuberville's 2004 squad went 13-0 and might have had a better shot at beating USC than OU did. We'll never know. The bar is set very high at Auburn. Tuberville reached it most of the time. He'd more than reach it at Texas Tech. He's an excellent football coach.

What I'm saying is no one cares what the academics are. And, it's hypocritical to say you do. Unless there's some huge demand that we see the players' grades as well as their game statistics, then all of the Troy discussions are nothing more than petty jealousy at getting our butts kicked by them year in and year out. Darrell Dickey's 2003 squad shut out Troy. Guess what? It had nothing to do with academics. We simply fielded a better team. Dickey's other three games against Troy were close losses (18-16, 13-10, 14-6). We're not getting blown out by Troy because of our academic standards versus theirs. We're getting blown out because they have a college football coach overseeing their program and we have a high school coach overseeing ours. As soon as we have a college football coach in charge again, the blow outs will end. But, it won't have a thing to do with academics. They're not down on the field trying to proof the Pythagorean Theorem. To pretend that they are is just puff.

The problem for Texas Tech is that in the ticky-tacky legal world, contracts are supposed to be formed in good faith. Sanctions can be made, at a court's discretion, if one party to a contract is found to have formed the contract in bad faith. Here, Texas Tech, even while discussing how to structure the contract, was already floating schemes for how to not honor it. That isn't good faith. What Tech seemed to be upset with is that Leach wanted a Bob Stoops/Mack Brown-type of contract. They, absurdly, thought that was bad faith. But, in contract negotiations, one party can ask for anything. It doesn't mean they'll get it. But, it's not bad faith to ask. Leach's point of view was this - you want Stoops/Brown type of loyalty (not interviewing for other jobs), then pay Stoops/Brown kind of money. That's not bad faith. That was simply Leach's side telling Texas Tech what the market was for loyalty. Tech didn't like the market price for loyalty. Fine. No big deal; but, not bad faith. And, the truth is, if you want to play with the big boys in the big boys leagues (BCS/AQ), then you are going to have to pay a price. If not, there will always be bigger football fish who will notice what is happening and try to get your coach ("Look what that guy is doing at Tech! Imagine what he could do here in Tempe/Boulder/The Palouse!"). The problem as restated and restated and restated is that Texas Tech was put in the position last year of negotiating a contract with the best coach they'd ever had, coming off the best season Texas Tech had ever had, but who none of them at the admin level liked. They had an eye to Art Briles, but not his buyout, at the time. In hindsight, they should have cut Leach loose and hired Tommy Tuberville. Tuberville had the BCS stripes and has always been willing to come to Texas, where he has family.

Awesome. If any exist, they'll be fun to read as well. Imagine the uproar that would ensue if Craig James was discovered to be in on the fix.

No. We're all about academics here at North Texas. On the athletics website, we list the players' class grades and GPAs instead of game statistics. The player bios are full of highlights of the players' academic tests and projects, not game highlights.

Um, yeah. The very public documents showing the scheme to get rid of him a year before they did so undercuts their "with cause" plea. They'll end up paying him most, if not all, of his remaining contract. It's pretty funny to read their e-mails whining about Mike's lawyers dealing in "bad faith" during the contract negotiations while they are, at the same time, trying to figure out how to get rid of him and not have to fully honor the contract they offer him. I actually think the whole thing can work out for everyone. If Briles goes to Tech, they get who they wanted all along. Baylor can then go after Tommy Tuberville, who is a great coach who wants back in the game. Leach will end up in the Pac-10 at either Arizona State or Washington State, or in the Big 12 North at Colorado. His personality is an excellent fit for the Colorado and Arizona State jobs - Western, laid back. Finally, we've seen the e-mails back and forth from the keystone kops of the Texas Tech administration. It'd be interesting to see any e-mails between Craig James and the brass of Tech as well.

Sad. Houston has nine in the box here and still couldn't stop Air Force's ground game.

Most of this is true. And, unfortunately for Texas Tech, most of it is in e-mails dating back to December 2008. There are several now making the rounds on the internet. We have a business associate who played football at Tech and is a donor. He's comfirmed the inside chatter of the e-mails. They will be damning to Tech in court because they show that the school was floating ideas to fire Leach even while they were negotiating his last contract. In the e-mails, they details parts of Art Briles contract and the mechanics of the buyout. At one point, they suggest waiting a year to fire Leach so that Briles' buyout would be smaller. There's also some humorous stuff in there as well. One of the Tech says Leach couldn't get another job as good as the one at Tech beased on the fact that he didn't interview for the Kentucky job when it was open. They put this down to Leach not being in demand. I guess it never crossed their minds that the Kentucky football job doesn't have a lot of prestige. They also show the kind of dream world the Tech administration lives in. At one point, one of the Tech guys says that there are only 10 to 12 head coaching jobs that are better than the one at Texas Tech. That's laughable. But, even if it were true, it would be because Mike Leack put them on the map. This thing will be tangled up in the courts for awhile. But, with the Tech administration people being so stupid as to e-mail this stuff back and forth - and to let big dollar donors be a part of the e-mail group - you have to wonder if they'll fight it. The e-mails are very damning. But, they do show a very ignorant administration. So, maybe they will fight, even with clear evidence that they were moving to find ways to fire Leach and hire Briles at least 13 months ago.

No. What he's not understanding is that we're talking about formations and schemes. We have one basic scheme with the QB in the shotgun all the time. The other schools we have discussed give multiple looks. Sometimes the QB is alone and in the shotgun, sometimes behind the center in a Power I. There are fullbacks and tight ends used - really used - in other schemes. He's just counting up plays, which means nothing. The majority of plays run at the end of the Troy and Alabama games were rushing plays to get out there because we were getting blown out. In our two wins, rush plays were called at the end to preserve clock. It means nothing. There is no mystery in those decisions. What matters is when the game is on and within reach. In the vast majority of those instances - short or long, regardless of down and distance - we are standing there in the shotgun. No fullback. No tight end threat. The opposing defense knows what is going to happen - especially with Riley at the helm. (1) He'll hand off to a running back, (2) he'll keep, or (3) he'll throw a short pass. Thus, opposing defenses crowd the line, use man coverage, and blitz a lot against us. They've got nothing to lose. And, there's no extra blocking help. The only downside is that they may blitz and miss leaving Dunbar free to run. However, they didn't miss often enough to impact the games overall. We still went 2-10. And, 14 of Dunbar's 19 TDs were scored while we trailed, so it isn't as if we were jamming the ball down people's throats from the gun. We caught a bunch of teams in blitzes while they were ahead...or already had their second or third teams in the game. Someday, we'll have multiple looks again. It just won't be with this coaching staff. They are unable to change, and unwilling to despite ample evidence over 36 games that what they do is ineffective against everyone except for FCS/FBS fledgling Western Kentucky.

Agreed. Getting Cincy moved from Indy to CUSA to Big East is awful.

Dunbar piled up yards because teams didn't key on him. That allowed him to break some long runs. It didn't matter. When we needed short yardage or to kill clock or move the ball, the run game wasn't dominant, effective, or even consistent. Opposing defenses didn't waste time keying him much because they knew our offensive braintrust wouldn't put the game in his hands. When Todd Dodge drove up from his high school job, he talked about killing the will of the opponent. Nothing does that more than a dominating run game. The Nebraska and Air Force bowl games were textbook examples of it. We don't have the components to push people around. And, we don't have good enough athletes to finesse opponents either. Here's the other smart thing about the teams going back to the run - to counter the spread, many school have started recruiting smaller, faster linebackers and employing unorthodox defenses (3-3-5s, 4-2-5s, 4-1-6s). With the smaller backers, you can really do damage with a run game.

You know what I like... I liked watching Ohio State's offense. Sometimes they went shutgun spread. Sometimes they went Power I with a fullback and tight ends. They did empty sets, one back sets, two back sets. Fullbacks. Tight ends. The point is, they mixed it up. We don't mix it up. Ditto watching Oklahoma yesterday. They'd pound the ball for two yards on the ground just to keep Stanford honest. Then, their freshman QB would wing the ball downfield for big gains. Like Ohio State, they had many looks that included tight ends and fullbacks. They had versatility and kept Stanford's defense off kilter. Look at the Nebraska game. The day before that game my dad and I were discussing the Stoops-Pelini matchup. I told him that if Nebraska kept trying to run their spread, Arizona would beat them the same way Virginia Tech did earlier in the year. In that game, the Huskers had the ball inside the redzone several times, but never scored a touchdown they lost 16-15. Zach Lee was 11-30 for only 136 yards, no TDs and two interceptions. Against Texas in the Big 12 Championship, same thing. Zach Lee went 6-19 for 39 yards and three three picks. Texas, like Virginia Tech earlier in the year, won on their final drive of the game, 13-12. Pelini woke up for his bowl game and ran the the ball by a 2-to-1 ratio over pass plays and won big. If he'd pulled his head out of his backside before the season started, Nebraska may have been in a BCS game with as few as one loss! Those are just a few simple examples. Many other teams - check that - most other teams make you respect the run. We just don't. We are hell bent on doing this high school spread offense whether it's first and 10 or 3rd and inches. It's crazy.

TCU should be playing Florida. The Horned Frogs were jobbed by the BCS by being stuck in a game with another non-AQ school. If they win, it's no big deal - if they lose, they'll be brushed off as pretenders. Either way, the AQs protected themselves from another potential Utah-Alabama/Boise State-Oklahoma.