Greendylan

Athletic failures haven't necessarily hurt my degrees from UNT. They haven't helped either. I've made this point during the offseason before, and I guess I'll make it one more time. Check out the list of 30,000+ enrollment state universities that play FBS football and tell me how many of them have athletic programs that are inferior to ours. We are unquestionably in the bottom 10%. Now, of the upper 90%, I sure can't find too many of those that have a lower academic ranking than us. There is an obvious correlation between athletics and academics when you're discussing schools that fit our overall profile. The truth of the matter is that large state universities simply don't suck at anything they do. We are embarrassingly one of the very few exceptions. It just so happens that we suck at perhaps the least important but most visible of university endeavors. Our academics are fine, but they aren't strong enough across the board to overcome the perception hurdle that athletics throws out there year after year. Whether it's fair or not, athletic ineffectiveness/insolvency is indicative to the general public of further institutional frailties within a university.

I would like to see articulated goals from the athletic department (both immediate and long term) and a plan for how they will achieve these.

With all due respect, the problem, as I see it, is that successful mid (or high) major programs don't routinely hire coaches who seem to be stymied by their own players' personalities. And, on the rare occasion when they do hire someone who consistently can't seem to inspire his players, they quickly change course. I don't think it takes 40 years of hiring/firing experience to recognize that we do not compare favorably to many of our peer athletic programs.

Well, I don't mean to nitpick, but wouldn't a more accurate view of the class be either an average of the various rating systems or sticking to one that is deemed the most reliable?

Question, what is the methodology behind picking and choosing from three different recruiting services?

Well, I was one of the few adults actually there, and I'll say this about the final score: We often pushed the tempo, got sloppy, and subsequently either turned over the ball or tried to force an awkward shot. However, it never really felt like Langston had a chance to win. Every time they nearly caught up, we tightened things up and exercised a bit more patience on offense, which cushioned the lead.

He seems surprisingly quick for his size/shape.

I'm of two minds when it comes to this issue. A part of me thinks that this conversation is two years too late (not that it didn't occur on GMG then as well). The other side of me thinks that once you begin a new season, you kind of cool it with the "fire coach" talk until at least late January/early February. Now, if something shockingly embarrassing happens early in the year, then I guess that's different, but I wouldn't say that that applies just yet.

You know the policy--everyone gets at least four years before a buyout.

When I think of "creativity" I think of innovative thought--not solely arts and music. Engineering, programming, and high finance are all fields that require successful creative thinking, no? Plus, this slogan does also draw attention to some of the subjects that have traditionally been strengths at North Texas. We should highlight our programs that are among the best in the state, right?

Having broken a collarbone myself while playing high school sports, I must say that I am quite impresed that he could play through that type of injury. Additionally, I noticed from his film that one of his best attributes is his ability to fight for the ball and out muscle the defender in man-to-man coverage, which makes this injury even more surprising. I have a good feeling about this guy.

This is a really refreshing post, which is much needed after a rough couple weeks around these parts.

You know, 10-15 years ago there was always this sense of an athletic department plan, a blueprint for success. That plan was simple, and there was clear and concise documentation to support it: build a new state of the art football stadium, build a Mean Green Village, etc. Then, leverage these vast facility upgrades to positively position North Texas before the next round of conference realignment. Our athletic department, by all accounts, worked tirelessly on this goal and never deviated from the master plan. They were so committed to this vision that they held our football and basketball coaches to impressively high standards and would not tolerate on-field performances that were either stagnating or indicative of a potential decline. The emphasis, in these sports, was on momentum and progress in order to correspond with the thrust of the capital campaigns. Any coach who visibly deviated from this plan was held accountable in the most stringent ways. Dickey, after winning an almost unheard of 26 consecutive conference games and coach of the year honors four years in a row, was fired after posting a season and a half of bad football and even worse PR. Two years later, the winningest women's basketball coach in North Texas history, Tina Slinker, was let go after a mediocre stint of 23-28 in her final two seasons. Her multiple NIT appearances a few years earlier were not enough. Even Johnny Jones, who eventually transformed North Texas into a perennial NCAA tournament contender, nearly lost his job early on in his tenure with the school after failing to sustain, briefly, his immediate success. We didn't all agree with the decisions in the mid-2000s concerning coaches, but the Athletic Department's commitment to winning and adhering to the plan was undeniable. And, after some time the plan succeeded, and we almost universally praised the diligence of the Athletic Department to find a way to get it done. Now, during the 2014-2015 academic year, I'm having trouble recognizing a plan. Are we simply paying off debts incurred because of Apogee and generally too broke to accomplish much else? Have we redefined the measures of success in football and basketball now that we're in a new conference? Are our football scheduling issues due to a failure on the part of the Athletic Department, or is there an unseen plan at work? I could accept a season or two of losing (and at this point I still fully support McCarney) if only I felt that there were some sense of a vision from the Athletic Department regarding where we want to be in a few years and how we plan to aggressively pursue that.

"'Greg hasn’t been with the program,' UNT coach Tony Benford said. 'He has been taking care of personal issues and is probably not going to be with our program going forward.'" See, that wasn't so hard. All it took was a misdemeanor to encourage Benford to finally answer the question Vito has been asking for weeks.

Good work compiling that extensive list. It would be interesting to learn of what institutional research the athletic department is doing/has done surveying potential recruits to determine which of those factors carry the most weight. It might also be enlightening to learn if our assumed strengths, from a recruiting standpoint, are perceived as such by recruits.

Ha. OK, I should clarify my point. First, I don't mean to diminish any of the quality wins above. But, I was really referring to wins over ranked teams. Meanwhile, I'm fearing a blowout loss to SFA for the second year in a row, so, it doesn't exactly feel like we're on the verge of getting to where we need to go. Hope I'm wrong--the season is still young, I suppose.

I would love to share in this reaction. Lately, however, when I see scores like this, all I think about is how North Texas NEVER is the team that pulls off the huge upset . . . in basketball or football. And, we've been trying for a LONG time.

We hit a FG about once every ten minutes. OSU was without several key players and still barely had to break a sweat. We are not going to beat many CUSA teams unless we are somehow able to completely revamp the offense. I don't know if even Reese will be enough to save this season from disaster.

I can't watch any more. Not that I expected much better, but this feels like the millionth time in a row that we aren't even close to pulling the upset against a really good team.

I would argue that we have a better chance of beating Texas Tech than SFA . . . and I don't expect us to beat Tech.

No, I totally agree. My concern is that the people with the power to effect change in our athletic department are blindly hoping for the great Mean Green diaspora across DFW to suddenly wake up one day and storm into Apogee. My fear is that the Athletic Department expects for North Texas teams to merely continue competing at Division I football. In turn, I feel like they expect students and alumni to want to come to games simply because, well, we have a shiny new stadium that houses Division I football. Furthermore, even if we somehow fill Apogee for every game in perpetuity, that only means an increase of 9,000 over our current averages since we built a comparatively modest-sized stadium. An extra 9,000 would be super duper and all, but even that pie-in-the-sky scenario wouldn't come close to solving all of our problems by itself.

Just to clarify my previous post, I didn't mean to insinuate that attendance doesn't matter. It does. My point is simply that if we're going to place the onus on the fans to fix what ails our football program, then we may be sorely disappointed with their ability to do so, and that's even if we do somehow start regularly packing Apogee. Furthermore, I wanted show that our attendance really isn't THAT bad, considering our continual failure to make a big splash in several decades of trying. In the spirit of the thread's original question ("What do you expect from this program"), I guess I'm asking another question: What does the program expect from its fans?

I think it's time to finally dispel the myth that attendance is preventing North Texas from achieving anything of note on the football field. Here's the list of teams that at some point were ranked in the last five years while playing in a non-auto bid/G5 conference: Northern Illinois, Utah State, Boise State, Tulsa, TCU, Houston, Southern Miss, Nevada, Utah, UCF, Air Force, Hawaii, Louisiana Tech, Ohio, Toledo, Kent State, Fresno State, BYU, East Carolina, Marshall, and Colorado State. Now, if you compare attendance averages for the most recently completed season (2013) and remove TCU, Utah, and BYU--as they no longer played in a mid-major conference in 2013, here's what you get: 1. East Carolina 43,985 2. UCF 42,084 3. Fresno State 36,917 4. Boise State 34,366 5. Air Force 32,652 6. Hawaii 30,989 7. Marshall 25,023 8. Nevada 24,939 9. Houston 24,256 10. Utah State 23,263 11. Southern Miss 22,752 12. Ohio 20,672 13. Northern Illinois 20,669 14. Tulsa 19,893 15. Louisiana Tech 18,666 16. Colorado State 18,600 17. Toledo 18,467 18. Kent State 17,018 19. San Jose State 16,362 For that same season, North Texas averaged 21,030 and would have been 12 out of 20, even though we haven't been ranked in about 40 years. The first six on this list are doing a significantly better job than North Texas, but we're essentially right there in the middle of the pack among the other 2/3 on that list--and some of those have been regulars in the rankings throughout the last decade. I know it's become a chicken vs. egg debate in the world of college athletics, but I fail to see, statistically speaking, how the lack of 30,000+ attendance averages is somehow hampering our team on the field. In fact, other than a few outliers, most successful mid-major programs are pulling in fans about as well as we are. Now, consider the fact that most of us have NEVER seen the Mean Green accomplish any of the following: -achieve a ranking -beat a ranked team -participate in a major bowl -pull off an upset in a "money game" If you take into account that none of the above has happened since the Carter administration, it's a minor miracle that our attendance isn't far worse than it is. Performance on the field is determined by scheduling, coaching, and recruiting. Whether or not we're able to cajole a few thousand extra casual college football fans into finally wandering into Apogee some sunny day will not instantly transform us into a winning program. Sure, it might temporarily boost the egos of our players and make them hit extra hard for a play or two, but it won't make a ridiculously undersized D-line suddenly able to pancake O-lineman who are 100 pounds heavier. Of course, attendance does help with recruiting, but it's only one of several factors. If we don't improve upon the other areas of our recruiting pitch, attendance won't make a noticeable difference. I mean, even if we magically started averaging 28,000 (which would mean nearly selling out most games), would that additional 7,000 really change the dynamic of recruiting for us? Would Desmon White, for example, have maintained his commitment to North Texas and not been flipped to TCU? Maybe, but I doubt it. I tend to think the fact that we NEVER, EVER make a splash on the national stage--NEVER ranked, NEVER upset anyone in a headline-grabbing fashion, NEVER beat the premier programs (UT, A&M) in our own state--weighs far more in a recruit's decision-making. It's time to recognize that somehow our peers are able to play the same hand and, at least on occasion, achieve spectacular results. We NEVER do, and it's ridiculous to blame our absentee alumni and the hole they create in our attendance.

I agree that we need more accountability. In fact, I think it's becoming increasingly obvious (in multiple sports) that the standards for success here are woefully minimal--to the extent that sometimes I question whether win/losses is even a significant criteria point in performance reviews of coaches. Having said that, I do think we need to resist viewing this season in isolation. If we are to evaluate McCarney's job performance based on immediate success, then don't we have to consider his results in relation to his immediate predecessors? In all four years of McCarney's tenure, he has won at least four games, which is a feat (albeit not an earth-shattering one) that neither of the two previous head coaches had accomplished since 2004. We had six years of 1-3 wins and then immediately 5,4,9,4 wins. In many industries, that type of improvement would be considered a smashing success. You also have to award credit for reaching and winning the most important bowl game that the program has seen in many years (some could argue decades). I don't see how you can realistically fault McCarney for years 1 and 2. He cobbled together out of the ashes of the Dodge disaster respectable seasons. We weren't exactly good, but I think you would have to say that his performance was at least passable after taking over for one of the worst college football coaches in the history of the game. Year three was a success. Year four was a failure--but it was a failure that many preseason publications predicted based upon the loss of nearly all our playmakers who had made the previous year a success. We told ourselves the foolish lie that our four returning O-linemen would somehow make up for a zillion other key losses, and we should have known better. That brings us to year five. That will be the season to determine the McCarney legacy at North Texas. Either he proves that 2014 was indeed a rebuilding year and an aberration on the way to sustained success or he reaches his fourth losing season in five tries, which in my opinion would constitute a resounding failure.

Is anyone else going to be heading out somewhere in the Ft Worth area this morning for some game watching? We have a couple locations in mind but are curious of others' plans.