Greendylan

Over the past few years it seems like it's almost 50/50 as to whether or not we get a kick blocked.

We're on pace for 142 total yards of offense!! That's ok because we are playing one of the toughest defenses in the nation, right?

Prediction: We won't score an offensive TD today. *Garbage time at the end doesn't count.

Nothing about the way we're playing right now makes me feel good about winning on the road this season.

Yeah, what happened between last year and this season to make the running game a complete non-factor?

In fairness to ULM, they had to play the whole game tonight without Kolton Browning. Tulane didn't get to face ULM's backup until late.

I live in Greenpoint, and I'm thinking Red Star Bar might be willing to put it on. They have two floors and countless TVs, and they usually aren't THAT busy on Saturday afternoons. NFL Sunday is their bread and butter.

Looking at UTSA's schedule, I could easily see them going 4-4 in conference and 5-7 overall, which is a lot better than many on here would have thought before the season.

I respect this attitude, but personally I just see things a little differently. First, I don't understand how sucking at some of the most visible endeavors a university undertakes (often in front of a regional or national audience) would make North Texas one step closer to being Oxford, MIT, or Harvard. As for UT, they would probably maintain a sterling academic reputation even if they were terrible at every major sport, but I hardly think they're in the same boat as North Texas when it comes to national, regional, state, or even local perception. And that's what brings me to my next point--our peer group. I have ranted about this before, but I suppose it bears repeating. Our peer group is large (30,000+ student enrollment) state universities. When you place us in the context of that group, suddenly our stated athletic goals seem pedestrian at best. There are a few large state universities with such historically entrenched academic reputations that any athletic lull would hardly undermine their national standing (Texas, Michigan, Virginia, California, etc.). But the truth is that none of those schools ever DO suck at athletics. Sure, Virginia may not be a football powerhouse most seasons, but I remember how giddy all of us were at the thought of potentially upsetting them at basketball. Ok, so we may never become UT or Berkeley any more than we will become a stuffy 900 year old English university. But, what about the other large state universities? I posted a list awhile back, and I'll repost it if necessary, but I challenge anyone on here to name five 35,000+ enrollment state universities that are clearly athletically inferior to the University of North Texas. How many of the schools in that group have not been ranked in any major sport in decades? Of course, we don't want to further distance ourselves from the Oxfords, MITs, and Harvards of the world, but how many of the aforementioned large state universities sacrificed their academics so much in order to achieve athletic success that they are now embarrassingly beneath us? Are there even two or three examples that fit that profile? In actuality, there seems to be a positive correlation between academic prestige and athletic success when considering large state universities. Now, I know the immediate (and understandable) response here is to say that we aren't really peers with other large state universities because we have a smaller endowment and much less donor support than nearly all the others. That's true. But if we stratify our category that way, isn't that kind of like gerrymandering our peer group just to make us seem a little more impressive? That would be like someone saying, "Hey, everyone in my neighborhood has a nicer car than me, but that's ok. I have a pretty decent car for someone without much money in the bank, little income, and a shaky work history. So, even though girls in this neighborhood only like guys with awesome cars, I'm . . . um . . . doing ok, right?" As for RV, I appreciate his willingness to engage with even your average boosters. Seriously, I'm amazed at how the man regularly responds to emails from absolutely everyone. But, if he no longer has time to shake my hand, answer my emails, and memorize my name because he's so busy schmoozing with a lineup of millionaire donors, well, then, that to me is an acceptable tradeoff.

I live in a Brooklyn neighborhood that is largely populated by swarms of Kathryn Hendersons. Annoyingly, the pompous bio line above is the norm not the exception for the countless flocks of free lance/new media writers who lurk about at the local cafes and then blog about their trust fund-hipster lives.

This Athletic Department's policy toward postseason basketball in recent years has been NIT, NCAA or bust. We have never shown even the tiniest interest in the CBI/CIT as far as I have seen. Thus, this edict surely refers just to NIT/NCAA, right?

I tend to think the biggest disparity in this game will be our D-line vs. their O-line. We just don't have the size to effectively put pressure on Murray or to withstand a tough power running game. The only way I can envision keeping things interesting is if we constantly rotate bodies and use 10 to 12 D-lineman. We may not be able to change the size of our D-line, but if we keep them all really fresh, maybe that will nullify SOME of their advantage. I recall TCU using this strategy several years ago when they went up to Norman and beat Oklahoma.

Ball State was not held scoreless for a half all last season.

Well, I was wrong with some of my earlier assessments of our defense. They really made some serious adjustments!

Yes! That is what I have been wanting to see!

Midway through the third and we still haven't forced a punt. That is why I'm not feeling any better just yet.

I want to feel that way, but here's the problem: We managed to get 4 turnovers against their offense, including the first interception their QB has thrown in several games. But, they still scored 27 points. Just think about that for a second . . . 27 points in a half, despite 4 turnovers. If they hadn't turned over the ball a bizarre amount of times, would they have scored 50? I guarantee we won't get another 4 turnovers in the second half, which means we'll actually have to make them punt. I don't know how we're going to do that considering that our D-line looks completely ineffective in creating a pass rush.

Exactly

I obviously like the TD, but I wish that drive had eaten up more time.

Well, Ball State clearly has an advantage when it comes to skill position players, and they may be a little faster overall. But, our defense also just seems to be guessing wrong and out of position as a result.

Well, the commentators keep mentioning how much more skill and speed the Ball State players have. So . . . recruiting?

Now are we allowed to lose our composure?

No words. Eight years of horrible teams. Now we have a team full of experienced starters and . . . we are being blown out at home against a MAC team.

If our offense doesn't start taking some chances, this is going to be a REALLY bad blowout. I think they will get a TD just about every drive against our defense.

This defense looks lost.