Greendylan

I absolutely agree with the statement that UNT simply does not currently have enough offensive firepower to keep up with Ball State's scoring. So, maybe this would be a good week to unveil a QB rotation that will expand the playbook and keep their defense guessing the whole game. I mean, we have to try something new, right? If we try our standard old run up the middle for no gain, run again up the middle for one or two yards, then attempt a predictable pass on third and long in a four wide receiver set system, then we will be blown out. We are going to need to score a LOT of points to stay in the game. Want to know how many they will score against us? Review the Houston games of the last two years, and I can almost guarantee that we will see a shockingly similar point total. The question is this: Will our offense, as presently constructed, score the 40-45 points (at a minimum) necessary to even have a chance? If the answer is no, then we REALLY better throw some wrinkles in our game plan.

Well . . . I hate to say it, but we really need to dominate the non-conference home schedule, so I guess I kind of see where Benford's logic is coming from. I don't see a lot of likely wins on either the conference slate or the non-conference games away from the Super Pit. At least this gives us a chance to break even for the year . . . for what that's worth.

Agreed.

As some others have pointed out already, our running game really struggled to get anything going against Ohio. Our offense is clearly built with a run-first mentality, and when the running game fails to produce that puts an undue burden on the QB to do something he isn't supposed to have to do in the fourth quarter. Yes, Thompson has to stop throwing interceptions at critical points, but the rest of our offense needs to put him in a position where he doesn't have to make long, desperate passes with little time on the clock.

They played hard, but do we have enough of a home field advantage to overcome an 0-6 road record?

Honestly, we are capable of beating really bad teams. Beyond that...I don't know. What I see now is a three or four win team. I hope that improves, but it's been so long since we've won two in a row that I'm too embarrassed to even think about having a respectable season right now.

I want to stay positive, but I just see absolutely nothing from our offense that makes me think we can get back in this. Will we ever be bowl eligible if we simply can't compete on the road?

Everything seems to be going wrong at this point. I hope this doesn't turn into too much of a blowout.

Fair enough. Not to nitpick, but Ohio is not a defending conference champion. A very good team and bowl champion, but they were 4-4 in the MAC.

I agree with everything you're saying except for it being 50/50 now. Because nearly every media outlet is still predicting them to win, I would have to think our odds are now around 40/60 . . . which is still a big improvement from a couple weeks ago.

Why would that be necessary to reach 31-30?

Exactly. They may be the second best team on our schedule. I think some on here are REALLY underestimating just how hard it will be to beat them on the road.

Good research. Those numbers are, of course, quite sobering. However, I do think it's worth pointing out that they may be SLIGHTLY unfair. For many years, few Sun Belt teams had winning records, so we didn't really have the opportunity to tally wins against such teams. The opportunities we did have to play teams with winning records were often money games on the road. You are correct, though. We have a coach in his third year and a senior-heavy team. The past eight years have been filled with excuses--some valid, most not. The time to win is now.

Seeing someone, anyone envision us having an awesome season for the first time in about a decade is refreshing to say the least. But, let's keep this in the context of a whole sea of preseason predictions. This computer is THE one outlier--an anomaly among all the prognosticators/computers that have examined this upcoming season. I don't know their exact methodology, but they might be simply plugging in last year's record, number of returning starters, and this year's strength of schedule. Based on those factors, I could see how one could really overestimate our record. That formula might be highly accurate for most teams, but I don't really know if it fits for this team. For instance, a lot of our own fans see the fate of our season resting on two or three backups supplanting starters. The computer, by contrast, would probably knock off a couple wins if that were to happen. What I mean is that it seems to be VERY complicated regarding who will/won't or should/shouldn't even start for this team. Thus, where this formula might have pinpoint accuracy in some years, it might not tell much of anything about this team's future. And that's ok--that's the magic of watching a college football season unfold. 9-3 is plausible, but it would mean we won EVERY toss-up game. Who knows? Maybe the karmic wheel will finally turn our way. It's fun to hope, but let's not lose our heads and concoct unrealistic expectations based on one bizarre computer report.

OK, what about a compromise where many practices are open to fans but a few (where there are serious opening game plays being drilled/discussed) are locked tighter than Fort Knox?

I am counting on MG Premium to come through for me.

DT was a little disappointing in 2012. In 2011 though he went 5-5 as a starter and threw five more TDs than INTs, along with 3 rushing TDs. He's never been an all-conference caliber QB, but his overall record as a starter, 9-13, is MUCH better than the record of 13-59, which is what his predecessors compiled from 2005-2010. Why do we criticize his record rather than credit him with more than doubling our recent winning percentage?

Look, I also think Scott Hall should be a hall of famer. Could he do more than DT with our current talent? I'm sure he could, but that's not fair to DT to hold him to "hall of fame" standards. My point is just that I don't think DT has ever had the same luxuries as the guy who is often cited as our last great QB. For instance, in 2003, we were able to absolutely destroy Baylor. Was the pressure on Hall to take over and control that game with his arm? No, he threw five total passes. Smith threw ten more passes, and combined they had 124 yards. In the last regular season game of that same year Hall had a pretty rough game against NMSU. He went 4-11 for 85 yards and no TDs. And we won. That NMSU team was 3-9 that year. If DT had those kinds of numbers with this year's team against a similarly poor opponent, we would lose, and we would thoroughly castigate him for it. Scott Hall was awesome, and DT will probably never get to his level. But, Hall did have some bad games too, and when he did, we often still won. When DT has a bad game, we don't stand a chance. Does any of this mean that McCarney is making the right decision in starting Thompson over the others? I have no idea since there's no way of really knowing how they're performing right now. My point is simply that we're being just a tad harsh to DT.

True, but I have a feeling we'll see a rotation that will allow one or two "backup" QBs to essentially try out for the job throughout September. I think a case could be made that with a fifth-year returning starting QB/team captain, you almost have to start him in the opening game unless someone else is WAY better already, just for the sake of your team's psyche. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there will be a rotation in game one, and if someone else looks like the better QB, then that person will soon take over. Perhaps McCarney simply wants to show loyalty and respect to his senior class by making the much more inexperienced QBs win the job on game day--if someone is going to take the reins. It is also possible that DT has actually improved a lot this offseason. That does happen even before a guy's senior season. Not to rehash an old argument, but we were really starved for playmakers last year. DT may not ever be Scott Hall, but he also doesn't have the benefit of Andy Blount, Patrick Cobbs, and Johnny Quinn. One of those guys was among our greatest TEs ever, and the other two spent some time in the NFL. Does DT have that same level of talent surrounding him? Would Scott Hall look like Scott Hall if he were plugged into our current Mean Green incarnation?

Bingo! Determining which QB takes the first snap of the first game is not that relevant in the great scheme of a season.

Yeah, we heard some positive reports out of August practices each summer for eight years straight and then witnessed the same old disappointing seasons. I relish the good news, but at this point it has to be out of this world spectacular news for me to even take it as good news.

Wait, did you just post a limerick as a way to expose a straw man logical fallacy?

I do have a question about RB. Our top three are all in the 220s. That may make for a good smash-mouth style, but don't we need someone to be a quicker alternative, especially on third down? Is it possible that someone else besides Byrd, Jimmerson, and Pegram will get some significant playing time?

Well, in the brief interview/practice video, McCarney claims that essentially no one needs to lose weight. 365 does seem to indicate that something has gone wrong though . . .

I think this is a solid article with some thorough information and reasonable predictions! Like some others, I tend to think that Louisiana Tech, despite the attrition, will finish in the top half of the division; I'd swap them with Tulane in order of finish. Then again, I wouldn't be that surprised if Tulane acquitted themselves admirably as well.