Greendylan

I'm just not convinced that it is an either/or proposition when considering the issues of postseason play and a practice facility.

I've been a strong proponent of our participation in the CIT/CBI in recent seasons. However, some of you have made compelling points in opposition to this, and you may have been right. Last season, for instance, our senior-heavy squad may not have had much to gain from it. By contrast, I believe that it is crucial to pursue this option this season for the following reasons: 1. We have a young team that needs more experience. Why not take advantage of any opportunity to play additional games against other quality teams? 2. It's not too big of a stretch to imagine us winning a couple games and continuing our 20-win streak. That's a fun fact to point out when advertising our program. Also, some non-conference battles in March might truly reveal where we stand heading into next season. 3. After our semifinal win over ASU, Holmen pointed out that our fans "travel well." Not that the team necessarily owes the fans anything, but wouldn't it be fitting during a year of increased attendance to provide an additional game or two? 4. In the entire history of our basketball program, we've only been to the NCAA tournament three times. Some prominent recruits may shy away from a team that doesn't frequently play a little later into March. By accepting bids to additional tournaments, we send the message that we are, one way or another, serious about postseason play (beyond the SBC tournament). 5. Yes, it's expensive. However, it's an investment in the future of our athletic department. I think of it as an advertisement for our school and basketball program. With the absence of a baseball team, we go several months throughout spring and summer with little to no media attention on our athletics. Not only do many of our Texas rivals have baseball, but they have nationally prominent teams. We counter only with softball. Participating in the CIT/CBI certainly won't solve that problem, but it's a step in the right direction and further proof to donors of our financial commitment to athletics. 6. Other respectable programs participate in these tournaments when given the opportunity. While the CIT/CBI don't garner the type of respect that the NCAA/NIT do, they still represent postseason play for good teams. The omission of our name from these lists may wrongly be perceived as our inability to get a bid. Last year the CBI field included schools such as Oregon, Creighton, Davidson, and Central Florida. The CIT boasted a respectable field of teams like Santa Clara, Valparaiso, Ohio, and Iona. 7. One incorrect assumption that can materialize when we choose not to participate is that we don't have the type of athletic budget of the above schools and can't afford to pay. While this may be wholly inaccurate, perception is everything in college sports. I can respect the perspective of those who don't see much purpose in these fairly obscure tournaments. This year in particular, however, I think we ought to at least give this serious consideration.

Yes, but I believe FAU would have to lose at least one of their two remaining games (home games against USA and Troy) for this scenario to occur.

ASU - 35 UNT - 17 I would love to be wrong, but there is just no evidence that this team can play well on the road.

You're probably right, but I will point out that in 2008 FAU was tied for third (4-3, 6-6), and they were the second (and only additional) team after 1st place Troy that was selected for a bowl. They were chosen over ASU (4-3, 6-6) and 2nd place ULL (5-2, 6-6). However, if ASU, ULL, and FIU all finish this season with at least 7 wins each, which is quite likely, then we would have no chance with a 6-6 record.

I think most people would agree that ASU had a greater shot than UNT at immediate success coming into the 2011 season. For what it's worth though, per Rivals, the recruiting rankings don't show a wild disparity of talent entering each program: Sun Belt Rivals Rankings 2008 UNT #3 ASU #7 2009 UNT #5 ASU #4 2010 UNT #5 ASU #6 2011 UNT #6 ASU #4 And, in case it's of interest to anyone, current (2012) rankings show UNT #2 and ASU #3. So, over the course of the last four recruiting classes, UNT's incoming players have actually had a slightly higher ranking than ASU. Now, our ability to retain and develop those players has clearly been lacking, and ASU seems to have done pretty well in that area. It will be interesting to see how the 2012 class materializes and if the current coaching staff will be able to get the most from that talent.

ULM - 35 UNT - 13 Honestly, I'm not even confident that we reach 13 points. ULM has an excellent run defense.

It does concern me that we were ULL's biggest win of the year. Even Nicholls State was more competitive (both in terms of final score and stats). Regarding the perception that we are undersized, there may be some validity. Average UNT starting offensive lineman weight: 302. ULL's starting offensive line: 311. However, our starting defensive front seven weighs 249 vs. ULL's 237. So, speed may be the bigger problem on defense. In reality, I think our offensive inconsistency is what's tiring out the defense more than a lack of BCS size.

Well, didn't we finish 4th in the West this past season? They are predicting that even after losing almost every key player, we will perform about the same as a senior-heavy squad from the prior year. One could argue that they are being overly optimistic.

First of all, I used the words "I fear that," which implies speculation. I never pretended to have anything other than a gut feeling about the situation. Second, I did not necessarily "make an argument against the athletic dept." Instead, I made a guess about what might be going on and their subsequent P.R. strategy. I did not, however, state that they were wrong to take that action.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons why the team might not want to participate in the CBI/CIT. However, I fear that the real reason is simply that the athletic department can't afford to pay. I'm sure they all know that an NIT bid isn't going to happen, and they only mentioned it to create the illusion that the school is making a conscious decision rather than facing economic realities.

Well, that's certainly a possibility, and I would obviously respect the players' opinion on such a matter. All I ask is that the university/athletic department announce their decision and the reasoning behind it.

This is going to be pathetic if another quality season ends with no postseason invitation. If we have to pay, then find a way to pay. Positive exposure, even in lesser tournaments, is vital to a program's development. If other SBC schools can afford to buy their way into one of these (as has happened in recent years), then shouldn't we be able to do the same? I just feel like the seniors have earned the right to one more shot.

Ok, thanks for the responses!

Is anyone in the Fort Worth area interested in finding a location for some game watching tonight? I know there are a couple viewing parties elsewhere in the metroplex, but the rush hour drive can be miserable.

I guess my concern is that we're now 1-3 on the road against some of the worst teams in the conference (MTSU may be mediocre). I can't in good conscience predict a win in any of the remaining four road games at this point.

So...are we the new Denver? Hello 9-7/8-8 conference record!

It's like watching a completely different team when they're on the road.

Well, I did a Google search yesterday and typed in "UNT" and "Mountain West Conference." The only only info that turned up came directly from this board. That tells you all you need to know. Sigh.

Well, it's not our support I'm concerned about. I hope the players support the new coach.

MTSU - 31 UNT - 28

Well, here's the way I look at it: We have, allegedly at least, some chance at hiring a high profile coach who will create some recruiting advantages and bring some positive national media attention as we move into a fancy new stadium. Canales doesn't have that kind of experience or name, so we are asking him to complete a Hail Mary in order to prove that he should be placed within an elite group. In other words, if he does indeed go 5-0 with a team that had been 1-6, then he will suddenly have the accomplishments to become a pretty attractive coach to not only UNT but probably several other schools. I think he's actually getting a fairly good deal here. Most coordinators with a similarly solid resume wouldn't even have the chance to throw that Hail Mary pass and prove that they should be considered amongst a list of big time current and former head coaches.

Ok, after reading some of the specifics regarding the downward trajectory of Bower's USM teams in his last several years, I can understand why he might not be the ideal candidate. However, I don't think it's fair to call him the next Dickey (who did accomplish some good things here). First, Bower's team finished ranked 19th in both polls in 1997 and 13th (Coaches) and 14th (AP) in 1999. Second, Bower has a 6-5 record in bowl games. While I realize that those rankings weren't in the last few years, Bower did win a bowl game as recently as 2007.

Ok, since you seem to have some idea of what's going on behind the scenes, is he as strictly opposed to some of the other big names that have surfaced as possibilities? I just don't see how the list would already be narrowed to two without at least gauging some interest from potential candidates.

So the knock against Kragthorpe is that about 15 years ago, while employed at another university, he may possibly have said, if we are recalling correctly, some "less than diplomatic" statements about his interest in coaching at UNT. For the love of God, can we either produce a direct quote or stop holding this against him.