GrandGreen

www.meangreensports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=1800&ATCLID=3756795 Talley wins 200m in Junior championships.

The logic I don't understand is in this quote: "Using simple logic you cannot sign 25 per year every year. In 2008 33 teams all signed over the 25 limit. 2009 was just as bad'." Sure you can sign 25 a year because players leave programs. You can sign a maximum of 25 in any year as long as it does not cause the total number of scholarships to go over the squad limit of 85. I guess I did not express myself well, so I will try again. Most teams over sign a few players based on their projections of having scholarships opening up. I don't think many have a problem with that, however many do have a problem with teams that sign a large number of players with borderline academic skills hoping that a percentage of those athletes will ultimately qualify. The NCAA clearing house requirements for college admissions are ridiculously low, having a third to half of a recruiting class having problems with those standards IMO indicates issues with either a college's academics and/or priorities. Sure there are athletes that have low test scores and go on to graduate and be successes, but the odds of this occurring are not encouraging. The most likely result, is that these students fail or are placed into degree plans to keep them qualified that fail to provide them with any significant college level marketable skills. I don't have to have heartburn to disagree with a point of view. I am not sure what NT's graduation rates have to do with the issues being discussed; but if you want to elaborate on the topic, go ahead.

I fail to see all of your logic. The fact is that players leave every program for a variety of reasons; academics, not enough playing time, ships not renewed, etc. Therefore there are more than the approximately 20 ships a year that would be available with a max limit of 85 and an average number of redshirts that would occur if no one left the program. As you have stated, schools can be guilty of over signing that have smaller classes than 25 when there are less ships available than players inked. Conversely, many of the schools you listed did not over sign because of transfers mostly jucos who officially signed in an earlier period but are including in the current class. The 85 maximum squad size limitation is hard to monitor during recruiting periods because no one even the coaches know exactly what current players are going to return. Staffs do know the size of their current squad and have a good idea of the number of players that will not return the next year for whatever reason. Therefore, most schools recruit above the 85 max because they know there will be more ships available before the new recruits report. Likewise some teams take more players than the 25 allowed in one class because they assume some will not qualify. You are correct, most universities over sign based on their projections of the number of qualifying recruits and the number of current players returning. However, the norm is to do this for a few players and not every year. Teams like Troy who have made this the basis of their recruiting strategy, I think are abusing the system. Troy has averaged 32 signings a season over the last four years, which can be interpreted as at least a third of their classes never pass the NCAA minimal academic requirements. Obviously, they can't identify that third or they would not have offered them in the first place. Therefore there are likely many more than that third that were recruited despite being marginal academic performers. These recruiting practices have worked out very well for Troy on the field, but have drawn a lot of criticism. The question I have is given the number of academic borderline players that end up at Troy is how do they keep them academically qualified. NT, for example does not seem to have the same success with keeping athletes with borderline academic skills in school.

I would be a little careful about all this criticism of FIU. All university programs are feeling the pinch which gets worse as you go down the athletic food chain. All those commenting that FIU doesn't belong in the FB Division, I assume are confident that UNT won't have much worse budget problems when trying to fund a new stadium in this economy.

Being able to recruit better than DD in his last few seasons is not going to thrill anyone. I fail to see what your comparison of players means. You have compared players that played little or never touched the field recruited by DD with players who have played or some that I guess you think have good potential recruited by TD. I guess you could make the case for DD recruiting by comparing Nwigwe, Bush, Drake, Robertson and Santiago with players recruited by TD that have already left the program. The facts are that every outside source rated last year's class at the bottom of the Texas schools and close to the bottom of the Belt. Some of the same people that are disregarding those ratings thought they were right on two years ago when NT was hailed as having one of the best classes in recent history. I think TD and staff did as well as they could last year considering NT's record, off the field issues, and TD's failure to prove he is a legitimate FB division head coach. I do hope and think they may have landed a few of the proverbial sleepers, that are always proclaimed by staffs that don't sign many players that are identified as front line prospects, who can play. I do think that TD has raised the talent level over were DD left the program, but it certainly is not were it was in DD's Belt winning years. I just wish DD had worked half as hard at recruiting and overall public relations that Dodge has, NT would be in much better shape and Dickey might have gotten that job away from NT, he so coveted. Dodge is doing a lot of things right with his minicamps and efforts to build better relationships with the high schools, but in the final analysis; only winning is going to substanually improve recruiting.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...9.6feaadb0.html More on Williams and Trilli's return. Williams looks like a good recruit. I like he has Dallas background and extra year of prep school basketball to develop. Also can play backup point behind Johnson and White if needed.

UTSA will have a rough go. They do have some great advantages such as a mega-city location with little local sports competition. They also got a great commitment from their student body for an athletic fee that maxes out at $480 a year. A disadvantage and advantage is, it is a new program. As such there will be a lot of excitement and support at the beginning but also there is no tradition and as a start up it could get very difficult to jump into the FB division. I assume that the Southland will admit UTSA as a football player member as they are already be in that conference. It will be very difficult for any program such as Texas State at San Marcos or UTSA to get into the FB division. Remember the key component is to be able to get a FB division schedule and without a conference sponsor this could be very difficult. Although it seems that the majority on this board seem to think it would be just dandy to add more FB programs in Texas, I doubt that the other FB division universities' administrations see it that way. Despite our Texas State posters' accretion there are very few players that will sign with a lower division school if given other choices. I really doubt any of CUSA Texas members want another team in Texas to recruit against. The facts are that most of the top one hundred and fifty to two hundred sought after Texas recruits are grabbed by name conference teams. The balance of the 350 average Texas recruiting class are mostly signed by the lower level conferences. It is out of this pool that TCU, SMU, Rice, UH, UTEP and NT get the majority of their class. I doubt that the six Texas lower tier FB universities want to further dilute this recruiting pool by adding two more competitors. The one thing that adding these two schools will do, is put Texas firmly in front of the race for the state with the most high school football recruits as another 40 that are going to lower divisions now will get an opportunity to play FB Division football.

La Tech requirements are 2.5 gpa or top 25% or ACT 23 or SAT 1050 for freshmen. UNT's requirements are guaranteed admission under state guidelines for top 10% of class; next 15%, 950 SAT or 20 ACT; second quarter of class, 1050 SAT or 23 ACT and third quarter requires 1180 SAT and 26 ACT. Nether are partically challenging but obviously NT is more restrictive. Average national scores for SAT in 2008 was 1017 and for ACT between 20 and 21. But both requirements are down right stellar when compared to a couple of our conference mates. Troy requires test scores if gpa is over 2.5, 16 ACT or 780 SAT. If gpa is lower than 2.5 requires ACT 19 or 910 SAT. WKU requires a 2.5 gpa or 20 ACT or 930 SAT, but if you can't pass those requirements; they have Bowling Green Community College that is actually a part of WKU that has an open enrollment policy. For comparison UTSA requirements are: top 25%, guaranteed admission; 2nd Quarter, 920 SAT or 19 ACT; Third Quarter, 970 SAT or 20 ACT; Fourth Quarter, 1020 SAT or 21 ACT. Texas State has no stated admission standards only require transcripts and class rankings. UTA is close to NTs with top 10% graranteed admission; Second Quarter, 1050 SAT or 22 ACT; Third Quarter, 1150 SAT or 25 ACT. The two schools that I think NT should keep pace with are the University of Houston and Texas Tech. NT compares with UH which has no minimum test scores for top 20% and others in top 50% 1000 SAT or 21 ACT. But Texas Tech has recently upped their stated requirements and NT is falling way behind. Tech under state mandate has no minimum for top 10%. Rest of the top quarter require SAT 1140 or ACT 25, second quarter SAT 28 or ACT 1230, lower half SAT 1270 or 29 ACT.

Not all but they have more than their share. I have not looked at their message board much since NT and La Tech were up for a CUSA bid till now, believe it or not they seem a little more reasonable than they were. However, what really is ridiculous as their continued reference to NT as an inferior academic school. What are they smoking, there is not one factor I can come up with that they would excel. As far as facilities, unless they have made vast improvements over the last two years; they are behind almost any fb division college I've seen. I expect they have improved their football stadium since NT played there, but at that time I don't think it was even a step up from Fouts. Yes, the sight lines were better than Fouts but the place looked like it was very poorly maintained and whole sections of the stadium were roped off and their restrooms couldn't compare.

Just curious, how did a game between two of the best Mountain West teams change your mind about NT and the WAC.

Well Danny what "far better schools" are just chomping at the bit to get into CUSA? There are not even a lot of "far better schools" already in CUSA. If you are talking only about the football program, yes; NT is on hard times but that doesn't mean that can't be relatively quickly turned around. If you really think NT cannot compete as an institution with the rest of the Belt or the various 1-aa schools that want to move up, I wonder what your rationale is. I seldom am accused of wearing green goggles but I think you are blinded by something other than the basic facts. NT is a large University in a great location with academics and potential significantly better than most of the Belt and most of the programs that want to move up to the FB classification.

Remember NT has 8 offensive lineman who have started for at least one year. Santiago, Drake, and Bailey have started most of two years; Johnson, Menard, Freely, Hollovay and Gill have started most of one year.

Why would anyone in the Belt want to move to the MAC? I don't consider the MAC a step up now, and I believe the Belt's future looks brighter plus I believe that both teams would prefer to stay in a Southern conference. CUSA could be a step up because the overall budgets of its members are significantly bigger than the Belt, but the difference in play is not that great.

I don't think La Tech has any problem being in a conference with UNT. In fact, that was the whole basis of the WAC offer to UNT.

I agree in principle that a new SW like conference would be great. However, the most effective way to accomplish this would be to merge Western CUSA and Western Belt into two conferences. One consisting of the Western teams and the other the Eastern teams. You would retain the Belt and CUSA conferences to maintain NCAA status. Assuming that the Western conference would be the Sun Belt and the Eastern CUSA, it should be a simple procedure for the Sun Belt to change its name to anything they can agree on. The new Western conference would just have ten football playing members and could then go after additional teams like New Mexico, New Mexico State or (I hope not) Louisiana Tech. Western Conference UTEP Tulsa Houston Rice SMU UNT ULM Ark St UALR New Orleans ULL Tulane Eastern Conference Marshall East Carolina Central Florida UA Birmingham Memphis Southern Miss MTSU WKU Troy Florida Atlantic Florida International Southern Alabama

A dual threat QB is what this offense is build on, and Riley will had a further dimension to it. Viza was a hard fearless runner but did not have either the speed or elusiveness that Riley possesses. Riley's speed makes him a special player and I think it would be foolish to overprotect him and significantly limit his running. Dodge's running ability should not only keep defenses honest but be a real offensive weapon. I expect him to run smart and not try to overpower tacklers but use the slide and running out of bounds to compete runs and not take the risk of injury for an extra couple of yards. I think it is obvious from the spring game that Dodge will run a lot and that is the way it should be. An attempt to make Riley a predomintly passing QB ala Viza would greatly hinder his potential. T

Yes, that would sure help NT's APR rating. The last thing NT needs is to take more borderline academic football recruits. I think this points out a major fault in the APR process. Some schools apparently have little problem taking students who barely qualify and keeping them in good academic standings once they pass the NCAA minimum standards. Schools are in effect rewarded for offering and steering athletes to courses with little challenge and probably less value. Conversely, schools that insist athletes take course loads at least comparable with the normal student are penalized. I definitely don't think Troy is an example of a program I want NT to copy. Approximately 1/3 of their signees do not meet the NCAA minimum academic standards and the school has the lowest entrance standards of any school in the Belt. Not a good combination for a school that wants to move up the athletic food chain. On field success is great but most college presidents want to be associated with schools with similar stanards and college athletic directors don't want to compete with schools that have lower standards.

Maybe, but someone had to hire him. Robbins also recruited two high school All Americans in one class prior to Tubbs being on the staff. Assistants usually do most of the work in recruiting, however the head coach has to close the deal.

That conference schedule is awful. Only four home games and seven away plus having the last five games all away. I don't understand how the Belt schedule got this imbalanced.

Not sure NT takes this competition very seriously. The key to winning is fairly obvious, strong track teams (counts as 6 events) and heavy use of foreign athletes. WKU for example won men and women cross country as well as women's indoor track and both women and men's outdoor track. They did this largely because of the heavy use of foreign athletics. Their conference winning cross country teams got most of it points from their 3 athletes from Kenya, 3 from Uganda and 1 each from South Africa and Ireland. These same athletes also dominated the distance events in track. Middle Tennessee follows the same formula with a cross country team including four from Kenya, 2 from Uganda and 3 from Canada. Nothing wrong with how MTSU and WKU dominate the all sports competition, in fact it is smart if your objective is winning the Buba's. Even though WKU has a two sports advantage and the MUTS one, NT could I believe make up the difference much faster and cheaper by adding African distance runners than adding more sports. Depending on foreign athletes is something that NT has really not done in the past, and I am not sure a meaningless all sport competition is reason enough to change that stand. However, NT has recruited one good foreign athlete in cross country and recently went from the doormat in woman's tennis to a contender by heavily recruiting international players. Foreign athletes in selected sports M Track inclusive of cross country WKU 8 MTSU 7 UNT 2 W Track inclusive of cross country WKU 5 MTSU 7 UNT 2 M Golf WKU 3 MTSU 0 UNT 1 W Golf WKU 0 MTSU 2 UNT 0 M Tennis WKU 5 MTSU 6 UNT na W Tennis WKU 4 MTSU 5 UNT 5 W Soccer WKU 1 MTSU 6 UNT 0 Volleyball WKU 0 MTSU 1 UNT 1 M Swimming Diving WKU 6 MTSU na UNT na W Swimming Diving WKU 4 MTSU na UNT 0 Totals WKU 36 MTSU 34 UNT 11 A lot of crowing on Belt board from MUTS about this all sports trophy. Understandable, but I am not sure it means much especially if you look at the details. All sports are not created equal and the ability and willingness to procure foreign athletes is such a large part of the competition in the Belt, it tends to diminish the value.

Robbins was a victim of sorts at UNT after recruiting IMO the best class by a long shot at UNT, he was terminated and never got to coach them in a game. He was probably the best recruiter ever at UNT although at the time the competition in Texas was not anywhere as tough. He was aided by a new and best facility in Texas, the Super Pit. Blakeley's success in his three twenty plus winning seasons was almost entirely due to Blakeley recruits. Robbins' last recruiting class included two all state players and one second team all state players (five man teams not like the almost everybody all state teams of today) Kenneth Williams, Fred Mitchell, and Melvin Davis. In other words he got 3 of the top 10 recruits in the state including 2 of the top five. Added to that he signed juco All American Terry Bailey in the same year as well as Joe Pride the leading rebounder in Juco ranks that year. He also had waiting in the wings redshirted transfer Carl Jones, one of the best shooting guards in NT history. Blakeley could have also inherited senior Bobby Iverson but he decided to forgo his senior season. He was a legitimate high school All American also recruited by Robbins and was probably the highest ranking recruit ever to sign with NT basketball. I have always wondered what Gene Robbins would have done if allowed to stay at NT. Blakeley's problem was he could not come close to recruiting at the level of Robbins and after Robbins' recruits left he was basically a .500 coach against a much easier schedule than Robbins had in the MVC. In Blakeley's defense going independent certainly hindered the basketball program and he alleged his recruiting budget was totally unsatisfactory. Those open complaints and mediocre teams after his third year ultimately got Blakeley fired. Then UNT hired Tommy Newman, another sad story.

www.meangreensports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=1800&ATCLID=3740484 Apparently there are more players leaving as by my count, this puts NT at 16 ships. Should booster the front line, but another kind of strange signing. She apparently did not start at the Juco and averaged under 5 points and rebounds a game although at a very good program. She had signed with Cal but mysteriously became available. The fact that at least at one time Cal, a very good program, wanted her is a good sign.

1. UNT's defensive front will be better. It is hard to imagine that it will be worse. However, NT did lose it's most consistent player in Thomas and the fruit basket turnover at the defensive end position in the spring seems to indicate that the large number of returning de's are not deemed adequate. I would have thought that with Gilmore at one end and Skyes, Brown, Owusu-Hemeng, Cole available at the other end that this position would improve. The Spring starters at de were Cantly and Akpunka who neither looked as good as walk on Nailor in the Spring game. The defensive tackle positions looks even more unsettled with Ross looking like the most likely starter. The staff does not seem that impressed with the rest of the dts available in the spring and it is likely that Atkinson will take the other position or Cantly will be moved back inside. I will buy that the defensive front will be better but I am not sure it is going to improve enough to be even Belt level average. If Gilmore stays at end, I think that position will be significantly better than last year, but I am not convinced that NT has the answers at the tackles position. 2. UNT's defensive secondary will be better because it is more experienced. I think the secondary will be much improved not primarily because of experience but because I think the talent level is been substantially upgraded. Yes, a years experience will benefit Royce Hill, Adams, Shorter, Williams and others. The addition of transfers Smith and Chatman will also help. It is not lost on me that Bush a three year starter at corner back is having to fight for a spot in the rotation against Adams, Smith and Hill. The safety position with Shorter, Williams and Cook also seems to be much stronger. IMO, the defensive secondary could turn into the strength of the team. The problem is can be defensive line give them some help with a decent pass rush. 3. UNT's linebackers will be a strength of the team. Two of NT's best players are Nwigwe and Robertson and both have experience and talent. The third line backer is the question. Will Kyle Hill remain in that position or will Phillips, Prior or perhaps even Penson, last years starter, end up in that position. Whatever happens with the second outside linebacker position, NT should be almong the leagues best at the linebacker position. 4. This year could be the turning point - finally - for UNT's defense. Despite last years lesson, I don't think NT's defense can get worse. In fact I think with the talent level improved, experience at most positions, and an a coaching overhaul that the defensive unit will be significantly improved. No, it will be far from dominating but with just a little help in the defensive line; I think it could at least be competitive in the Belt. In fact, I can see the defense being better than the offense this year.

I guess they mentioned Amber Jackson at this banquet. meangreensports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=1800&ATCLID=3738428

No way, will recruiting improve unless the product on the field improves. TD has certainly not enhanced his status with recruits by fielding the worst team in the nation last year. Any bounce he got from his great high school reputation is long gone, and the only way he can recover is to start winning big. The allure of a poor team and the vision of playing early just does not sell. If it did there would be a lot more equity in college sports.