Greendylan

Well . . . the guy posted a 37-18 record as a head coach . . . and he's available! Seriously though, it sounds like he is suffering from some sort of mental illness, and that's really sad since it will likely end his career at at pretty young age.

Ugh, I wish I didn't know this. Now I'm going to spend the next few months pondering whether or not we will even make the CUSA tournament.

So, am I to understand that he's a more Americany Niko?

You make some compelling points on this issue. And sure, if we really don't have a choice, then we don't have a choice. But, until the day comes that we are forcibly pried apart from the "big boys," I suggest that we fight tooth and nail to remain at the highest classification of college football. Let's say a measure such as the proposed $2000 or $3000 per athlete stipend is implemented and required for all programs who want to remain FBS (or whatever the top football division is called in the future). This would cost several hundred thousand dollars, but we could absolutely afford that, and I really hope we wouldn't even debate this before signing on. Or, what if we were required to increase our stadium capacity to 40,000 or 45,000 within say 3-5 years? Again, I would hope we would jump right on that. As for our size, I see your point here too. You're right; as it stands now, our enrollment doesn't necessarily give us a competitive advantage over smaller universities. However, doesn't it at least grant us some potential for upward mobility? I know we've been beaten to death with the "potential" argument, but just because we haven't capitalized on it yet does not mean we won't in the future--if we are blessed with the right leadership, marketing campaign, etc. Also, I'm really disturbed by the disconnect between our size of enrollment and our athletic attendance/revenue. The correlation is just nowhere near where it should be, and we are one of only about 2 or 3 large state universities in the nation to have this problem. FIU may be the only other one, and they have the excuse of nurturing a football program that's still in its infancy. This separation between enrollment size and athletic support (that is perhaps unique truly only to us) indicates a broader and even more troubling institutional failure that theoretically could be adversely affecting academics as well. Personally, I don't think we can afford (and I'm not just talking about athletics now) to simply accept this phenomenon as one of the idiosyncrasies of our school and go about our business, happily marching toward football purgatory and all that comes with it. Regardless of football, this problem must be fixed sooner rather than later anyway, if we are to remain competitive as a quality academic and research institution. Basically, we are simply too big to suck at anything. If we are sucking at something, that should alert us that someone isn't doing his or her job properly. Let's take this opportunity of a possible threat to our football classification to put on our big boy pants and aggressively correct the internal institutional failings that are preventing us from truly thinking and acting like our large, prestigious, successful peers.

Here's the problem: We're not a 3A school. We're within the top 30 (top 25 by some counts) largest state universities in the country. We're larger than many of the perennial national title contenders out there. I know some may disagree, but to me it's embarrassing to even consider dropping down in weight class to fight 145 lb welterweights just because we're kind of sucking as a 250 lb heavyweight. Look, the only element some of you seem to care about is having regional rivals and/or in-state conference mates. If this is the case, why did we ever leave the Southland Conference? Do you remember how we dominated and played in I-AA national championships every year? Oh wait . . . didn't work that way. In fact, it only took us 8 years to win as many conference championships in I-A as we did the entire time in I-AA. What happens when we acquiesce to being left behind and even applaud the development of a new division? Sure, being among schools like Rice, UTEP, Louisiana Tech, and UTSA doesn't seem that bad. But, what happens when one (or two or three) of those aforementioned schools finds a way to assemble the revenue/attendance/influence to move up and leave our sad little "3A" conference? We would end up even more irrelevant as a football program than we were in 1994 prior to the move to I-A. And, just in case you don't think it's plausible for any of the above schools to be included among the big boys, consider this: Rice could probably join a better conference any time they wanted. They have such a sterling academic reputation that plenty of the "big boy" schools would kill to have them among their brethren. Also, they have a baseball team that has won a national championship in recent memory. Finally, they simply have enough wealthy alumni that if they really wanted to (they haven't shown the desire so far, but just wait) they could pull some strings. As for UTEP, they could shift to the Mountain West at any time, and there is the distinct possibility that the entire MWC might be included in a jump up to a Division IV. If we remain complacent and sit back while many other football programs in the state move up in rank, we may be shocked at just how many of them eventually jump together and leave us staring up and wondering what happened. One point that I've made before is that when you list out the top 40 or so largest state universities in the country, almost all of them excel in one or more of the major revenue sports (for the sake of this discussion I'm including baseball). And, nearly every one of those schools is highly respected academically. No matter how you try to slice it, a school's reputation is a school's reputation, and academics and athletics are intrinsically linked in the general public's perception of an institution's efficacy and overall well-being (with the exception of Ivy League schools and various other highly prestigious private institutions--some of which aren't even all that bad at athletics). We REALLY need to start acting like our peer institutions (large, national research, state universities). I know we don't currently have the athletic budget or endowment that most of the other schools on that list have, but we must take our lumps in the meantime while we slowly work toward getting there. Knowingly embracing a divisional separation that officially casts us as "less than" most if not all of the relevant football programs in our state and region will NOT be good for our overall reputation as an institution of higher learning. It also will not necessarily help us win, as noted above. And, it will NOT help us build a fan base and/or increase athletic revenue. Quite simply, it will set us back further than, perhaps, we have ever been since the inception of our football program 100 years ago.

I doubt they want to elongate the whole evening in any significant way, so I don't think there will be much time for speeches or whatnot. I wouldn't get my expectations too high for this shindig.

Here's what concerns me: When I first began seriously following the Mean Green around 2001, I didn't know much about North Texas's past successes, outside of the Joe Greene era. So, I did some dutiful research and actually found that the Mean Green had an all-time winning record. That surprised me. And, over the last several years of painful disaster I've often cited this fact when justifying my continuing faith in all things North Texas. Here's the problem. After the 2004 season, we were 456-395, which is safely on the winning side of the equation. After just eight more seasons we having fallen to 478-468. That's a precipitous decline by any measure, and we are moving at light speed toward the dreaded all-time losing record. I don't think it will happen this year, but two more rough years and it could easily happen. I know it may seem like I'm making too much of this, and yes, recruits and casual college football fans care more about your recent history than your record since 1913. Still, considering a lot of the either complacent or even downright antagonistic attitudes that persist from within our own North Texas community toward athletics and football in particular, I think our complete history may be crucial. If we can show that over the entire life of our program we have ultimately been successful, then I think we have an easier time justifying the continued, or even expanded, use of university resources in the present and future.

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but the characterization above of Dickey's players is very, very different from my experience, as an instructor, with those guys.

I have no interest in bashing Troy, but I will point out that comparing acceptance rates among disparate universities is all but meaningless. It is much more revealing to examine institutions with a similar profile. For instance, UNT, UH, TT, and UTA are all large state universities of a roughly similar size. Also, they are all classified as national universities and major research institutions. And when comparing their acceptance rates it's no accident that they are all pretty close there. UH and UNT are virtually tied, TT a close third, and UTA just a few points behind them. In other words, we're all doing fine.

To answer the original question, I think next season's team will be less talented but more balanced. If a couple of the new additions really develop quickly and play to their potential, then I could see the team finishing around .500. If player development stagnates, then we may be headed for half this season's win total. I have nothing against Benford as a person, at this point, and I certainly would love to be wrong about my prognosis for next year. Right now I just don't see a lot of evidence of leadership, strategy, or player development from the coaching staff in order to evoke confidence in the upcoming season.

Even if somehow the long term numbers did add up to more profit by leaving a major conference to create a dynasty in a mid-major league, it still wouldn't happen. Every single administrator, athletic department employee, and board member could all agree that it's a smart move monetarily, but they wouldn't do it. Alumns, students, and most importantly big donors would absolutely revolt if a school like say Mississippi State willingly left behind a conference with Ole Miss to become colleagues with Southern Miss.

Yeah, we probably shouldn't waste too much energy talking about this fella. He's not coming here. What shocks me is that he has an offer from a Big X school but is still "waiting on that big D1 offer." If I were our coaches I would go ahead and pull the offer now rather than having it dangling out there and potentially scaring a more plausible qb recruit away.

Honestly, I agree with you. The Mean Green should be favored in this game, but I don't expect a blowout. We don't really have the type of offense that's built to blow most teams out. The Texas Southern game last season is an example of this. UTSA is far better than Texas Southern...and better coached.

What he said pretty much confirms that one or two current players will be leaving. Basically, he just indicated that nothing is official yet, so they are all "set" to return right now. Meanwhile he is publically admitting that he is already searching for their replacements. He wouldn't make those comments if the one or two players in question weren't already 99% out the door.

I wouldn't say that I'm THAT impressed. But, I do think we did a solid job of adequately filling our need areas. Also, it seems like we found some guys with the outside shooting skills that were glaringly absent last season. So, maybe we can now remove the flimsy excuses for last season's utter failure?

Well, at the conclusion of this past season I feared that Benford would really struggle to find quality recruits, especially at our need positions. He may have proven me wrong. On paper, these guys are better than I was expecting. Furthermore, several of them have Division 1 experience, which may really help the transition to the post-TM Mean Green. However, if there is any more attrition, and if that attrition involves Alzee or CJ or both, then we are screwed regardless.

If he is the player to leave, then I officially give up on next season. . . and just when the new recruits were starting to give me a tinge of hope.

Well, based on this theory, I would say Alzee is gone. (Admittedly, I couldn't attend the Caravans, so I might be misinterpreting things.) Also, I think it's very telling that we may now be seeking a 6'5" combo guard. That seems like an obvious replacement for Alzee. If that's the case, then I'm really disappointed.

Yeah, the phrasing of Brett's comment above (from a couple weeks ago, I think) leads me to believe that something went wrong. Not to deconstruct Vito's prose, but for him to mention that he is "'sticking by [his] assertion'" indicates that there was at least the possibility to think differently. Now that we are a couple weeks past that comment with still no news really makes me wonder if Vito still believes his original statement.

So, we do all understand at this point that there isn't going to be any news, right?

Actually, I like the lighting as is. That's merely personal preference of course, and I seem to be in the minority on that. I don't know; I guess I just like the "intimate" feel of the slight dimness.

Top 25 may have been a stretch, but how many of you were warning that our lack of outside shooting was going to land us outside of the top 100? Top 200? I don't recall a single person here, in the media, or anywhere else warning that we were a Brandan Walton injury away from a 245 RPI finish.

Yeah, it's a fair point to suggest that our lack of outside shooting just may have been the type of weakness that would have prevented any coach from winning 25 games or more. But 12? Are we seriously reintroducing the "Brandan Walton was the heart and soul of our offense argument"? I mean, I like the guy, but I never heard anyone emphasize his monumental importance to the team prior to this past season. I do think we will have some better jump shooters, including Walton, next year. So, can we all agree that there is no excuse not to have at least a decent season next year and that this should be clear after the first month or so? I'm hoping for the best, but if the first several weeks of the season look to be the same or worse than this year with a revamped lineup, then would an immediate change be appropriate?

Winning is probably the biggest factor, but there's a lot more to it than that. Consider this: For our 8th consecutive losing season, we averaged about 19,000. We performed better than Kent State (11-3), Northern Illinois (12-2), Ball State (9-4), Middle Tennessee (8-4), Western Kentucky (7-6), and several other winning teams. We have essentially drawn even with SMU for the past several years, even while they have been consistently winning. If you compare TCU to SMU you find that the former averaged over double the attendance of their Boulevarding rivals--and both were 7-6. The immediate explanation would of course be that TCU had a better schedule, playing their first year in the Big 12. Also, one could point to the fact that their winning has been much more visible and meaningful over the past few years than that of SMU. Still, 46,000 to 21,000, for teams with identical records, suggests something deeper. Simply put, Fort Worth feels more of a connection to TCU than Dallas does to SMU. Now, where do Denton and UNT fit into this? Denton County is somewhat disconnected to the Mean Green, but considering our numbers, our attendance hasn't been THAT bad, especially for a football program that hasn't given fans even the slightest tinge of excitement for almost a decade. I really think the Denton area and north DFW suburbs would LOVE to have a local college football team to watch live that doesn't require a soul-shattering drive through horrendous traffic in the midst of Dallas or Ft Worth. Would a 6-6 or 7-5 record set the metroplex abuzz over the Mean Green? No. But, it would give potential fans at least something of relevance to watch up in Denton. That alone won't be enough to create more than a minor bump in attendance; however, if our AD markets it properly and screams our successes from the rooftops (modest though they may be), then I think the possibility is there to snatch at least a portion of DFW's attention. I think people are getting things reversed when they point to the Dickey teams that were winning and still not drawing many fans. Rather than viewing that as a cautionary tale about how winning doesn't help attendance at UNT, I think we need to be asking, "Now that we've largely fixed some of the major impediments to attendance that stymied us back in the early 00s, just think what we could average now if we had a successful year?"

Well, I would imagine that it's a LOT more financially prudent to buyout UTA rather than pass on whatever A&M's paying to travel down there . . . but your point is valid. Like I said, they could simply be doing what's best for our schedule. I'm probably just being kind of suspicious these days.