GrandGreen

Has it not filtered down to most, that with NT defensive scheme last year that anyone with less ability than Deon Sanders would not be successful. I hated to see Roman go, he played hard but was a victim of the worst defensive coaching in college football and one of the poorest blocking kickoff teams as well. I think most of you realize that NT lost Green, Chatman, Roman and Ealey before their eligibility expired. All were corner-backs. Yes, there was some garbage alleged by some of these players, but I think the root clause may very well have been the pressure of a defense that did not work.

Not really into this debate because I don't think NT has any business adding any sport until a lot more progress is shown in the sports they now have. However, I also heard that with all the great softball talent in the area that NT would be a top program in no time. Did not happen and if you look at the current softball roster, you may note there are not many players from this area. Soccer started as a club sport at NT and was very successful due primarily to a large number of foreign students. It was elevated to a NCAA sponsored sport and had some success but was quickly overshadowed by SMU in this area. Baseball really never was a "real" NCAA sport at NT, no field, less than 2 ships offered, a part time coach on social security who was paid very little. NT only had a baseball team because it was a Southland conference mandate that was later changed and NT dropped the sport. Either sport would create more financial drain on NT athletes. Not just for that sport but whatever would have to be added on the women's side to balance out expenditures. Yes, a valid argument can be made that every sport at NT is a money loser, but the fact is that NT has to have 16 sports to compete at the 1-a level. They are at the 16 level and adding additional sports is not necessary. RV has stated that there will be baseball at NT and I guess that kind of ends the argument over soccer vs baseball. There are definitely some advantages to baseball that have been stated many times. It would give a little lift although I don't think it is very significant to NT changes of upgraded it's conference affiliation. It would provide NT more visibility in a rather dead period of college athletes at NT. There are a lot more local teams to play against than soccer. The most important factor in favor of baseball is I think it would have substantially better support than soccer.

APR is calculated based on the eligibility, retention and graduation of scholarship athletes. This determines the overall APR score, if it is not 925 or above; the school is subject to penalties. If a school has a score less than 925, than losing scholarship athletes due to academically ineligibility can subject schools to penalties up to 10% of maximum scholarships. Thus losing athletes that are in good academic standings will reduce NT APR scores and the likelihood that NT will get above the penalty threshold. However, if NT does not score at least 925, the lost of academic eligible players will not further decrease scholarships limits.

Let fire whoever is in charge of NT conditioning. Apparently based on the updated roster, almost every player has got shorter over the summer. I did read on the practice blog that they are using measurements and weights actually recorded this year. I applaud the honestly but not many programs use the correct numbers. Several years ago just for grins I compared the heights listed in college rosters versus the heights as measured at pro combines. Based on that modest survey, on average players' heights were actually 1 1/2 inches shorter than reported. Only one player was actually as tall as listed. So when you see that NT players are much shorter than any team we play per the game programs, don't panic.

Yes, but on the other side; Cooks was listed when recruited at 6'2 now 6' and Barrett 6'4 now 6'. I wish they had some kind of truth in stats provision for height and 40 times.

That is horrible news for NT if true, and it looks bad as she is no longer listed on the roster. For those that don't know, she was freshman of the year and a first team all conference pick last year.

I think points 1 & 2 are obvious. On recruiting, I think it is too early to tell but odds are with a limited number of ships and needs in the harder to recruit defensive line that recruiting will be substantially down. As far as last years rating, Vito may want to consider that although NT lost Horton, MTSU the mythical winner on rivals lost the one recruit, Jones, that mysterious moved them above NT and Troy. Have not checked but willing to bet that Troy lost a lot more than one of their over 30 player class. As far as the Scout ratings, NT was so far ahead of the rest of the Belt losing Horton would have little effect. It would be interesting if Rival, Vito or someone would do the research to evaluate recruiting based on who actually shows up. NT is down from last year in numbers, but I don't think NT had any recruits rating above 2 stars at this time. Franklin was after his senior season upgraded to a 3. People keep stating that last year's down year hurt recruiting but fail to consider that almost all of NT's last year recruits were signed after that season. I do think that it is critical for NT to have a much better season than last year and have a positive result on the stadium issue to maintain any recruiting momentum.

Link At least, it sounds a little more positive on Fentress. Sorry, already posted below.

I can see some rationale for TCU not playing NT in football with only 4 oc games to be scheduled. Playing SMU every year leaves only 3 games to be scheduled and means that they will always have one local match. This year they are playing two very attractive oc games, Stanford and Oklahoma. The other game is with 1-aa SFA. Obviously, it guarantees a home game and an easy one at that. I wish that a TCU/NT could be scheduled but their apparent strategy of playing one big time school and another BCS level school plus SMU and a team that they can get for a home game with no return appears solid to me. In basketball, their only reason to not play NT, is that they don't want to get beat. With an OC schedule including Angelo St., Ark-Pine Bluff, Grambling, Texas Southern, Prairie View A&M and Jackson State, it almost seems they want to be in the SWAC. There is no logic in not playing NT in basketball and the same is true for SMU not playing NT. I don't see either SMU or TCU scheduling NT in basketball unless they think it is a sure victory.

The DRC is and never was anymore than a local newspaper. However, Denton is lucky to have any home town newspaper and you may or may not like Vito, but the DRC is the only newspaper to cover NT athletes in any depth. I live in Grand Prairie and before that Irving, both cities much larger than Denton that have not had local newspapers for decades. I still buy DRC when I am in Denton just to add a little support to a dying industry. You may not miss the DRC when the DMN finally shuts it down and Denton coverage is limited to a page a week in the DMN, but I think many will miss the coverage that NT now gets.

I don't drastically disagree with any of his points on the defense. The de positions do look like a pending disaster with little experience returning and NT relying on a juco transfer with no other 1-A offers, a converted tight end, another player from the offense whose previous biggest contributions were as receiver on the infamous Green team, and aother players that have seldom if ever been in a college game. I think Owussu- Hemeng is the only player on the team that has ever played in a college game at de. I think the best that we can expect at the defensive end positions is Belt adequate and that is going to depend on at least 3 players significantly upgraded their play. I disagree on the linebacker positions, I think LB will be significantly stronger. I think the old crew he referred to were good in spots but never lived up to their early performances. Of course, in their senior year I don't think they had much a chance in the worse coached defense in college football. Likewise the defensive backfield will be much better due to coaching and arguable the most talented group of newcomers in school history. Overall, there is no way this defense could be worst than last year. They don't have the experience or talent in the defensive line to be above average, but I think the new coaching staff can at least upgrade their play to not be totally helpless against any team.

I was speculating, as you are, as no one can know the motivation behind that officiating.

Beg to differ, IMO Davis was a better player than Mitchell, Melvin Davis, Kenneth Williams, Terry Bailey or Carl Jones and you can also threw in Weasel Johnson. Comparing apples and oranges to some degree as only Jones played Chris's position. Carl Jones was one of NT's best ever shooting guards but did not have anything close to Davis's all around game. Carl could out shoot Chris, but was not close in defense or rebounding. The others you listed were primarily shooting guards or small forwards (McMillan, Lister, Manning and Taylor), but again done had anything close to Chris Davis's overall game. McMillian could jump out of the gym but was not a particularly good offensive player. Manning was a pure shooter but was not much a factor or the boards or a defensive force. Taylor was as tough as anyone to wear the Green but again was not a big offensive threat. Including Lister in the best every at NT is kind of confusing to me, he was highly ranked as a recruit but never really reached expectations. As far as Weasel Johnson, he was the only significantly piece to those 20 win Blakeley teams actually recruited by Blakeley. He was fun to watch and lighting fast but had way too many turnovers. As a group those Blakeley's teams had more talent than any I have seen at NT. So it is a little difficult to compare Chris who played on some very bad teams and was definitely the "go to guy" with Mitchell, Davis, Williams, Bailey and Jones who had to share the ball. All those you mentioned were among the best ever at NT but I think you are underrating Chris Davis a bit. On my all time list of best players I have seen at NT I would include Lurch Davis, Fred Mitchell, Terry Bailey, and Carl Jones along with Chris. Others I would include would be Crest Whitaker, Joe Hamilton, Willie Davis, Kenneth Lyons, John Shumate, Bobby Iverson and Jessie Ratliff. I guess it speaks volumes that only Chris is a player from the last three decades at NT. I do think White and a couple of others on the current team could potentially join my list.

Having gone to school in that era, I have to disagree to some extent. Student support was better than it is now despite NT having less than half the number of current students. Football games and the parties after were the big social event at the time and average student attendance was about 50% of the students. Can you image were the program would be now with that type of student participation? Non-student support was less than it is now as the Southwest dominated Texas athletics. As far as the schedule than it was not considered to be very good at the time. MVC football was generally rated about were the Belt is now. All those schools with the exception of Arkansas were definitely lower tier with NT and Memphis being the most prominent. An aside, I didn't go to the Arkansas game but from reports I heard; it make the 1988 UT game look superbly officiated in comparison. There was noway that NT would be allowed to beat the pride of the lily white SW southwest conference. I think the late 1960's and the Fry/Blakeney years were pivotable times in NT sports history. In both of these eras, NT had both great, by NT standards, men's basketball and football success. In both cases instead of taking advantage of the momentum and moving athletics forward, NT administration folded and severely cut funding.

A very exciting game, Dodge came through in the end when it counted most. I thought Dodge although probably rusty ran well and had plenty of arm strength. In general, the North offensive line was manhandled most of the game and both North QB's were getting roughed up. Hill and Williams both looked good and thought Hill looked much larger than what NT has listed. I would have liked to seen Brigman on offense, but he played well in the defensive backfield. Fortenberry didn't start but played, couldn't tell much about his performance but he did look big. Got to love all the attention the Dodge's got at the game.

Lets see I was accused of mocking TSU and now of trying to kill athletics at NT. It's been an interesting day. I attempted to explain were my data was derived and the assumptions made. It maybe bogus, in as much as most financial data relating to athletics is vague at best. If you have better data, I will stand corrected. However, I would like to know the origin of the monies that are necessary every year to pay for athletes at NT if not from student fees. I am reasonably sure it is not the title 9 assessment as these funds have been transferred many years before that was enacted, plus the fact by definition those fees are supposed to be restricted to women's sports not football. As far as my source, look at any year's published NT athletic revenue and expense recap. What we are discussing is the origin of the additional funds always transferred in to cover athletic expenses. Obviously, NT does have assess to additional funds with student fees seeming to be the most likely source of those institutional funds used to balance NT's athletic budget. Perhaps you have a break down of the current semester fees of some $970 per student per semester and their uses. By the way, disinformation is a term used normally to convey someone knowingly supplying false information to further some agenda. My rationale for most of my comments was only to be fair to NT students as I believe that they are contributing much more than is being sometimes portrayed. As an aside, I appreciate your efforts in support of upgrading the athletic program at NT.

I guess it's mocking an institution to make reference to the fact that their athletic department has problems funding current operations while planning on much bigger things. Never mind the article cited NT as an example of something that TSU does not want to be. I guess you read between the lines to come up with your synopsis of that post as somehow being against improvement for NT athletics and a student fee increase. Were you can rest your Houdini like perception, I will state my position on funding for the stadium. If NT cannot raise at least a large percentage of the construction cost for a new stadium from outside sources such as sponsorships and donations, than it should not be build. NT, as most know, is operating athletics at a huge deficit in most years. Yes, it is reported as balanced or even a surplus but this is after the transfer of funds usually on the order of $4m from other university sources. This generally ties with the numbers you have provided. My assumption is because this amount of approximately $120 per student is depicted as coming from general institutional funds it does not include the title IX assessment of approximately another $120 a year. Thus students are already averaging about $240 a year to athletics. This IMO is not an unreasonable amount and can be raised, but the question is by how much and what effect an increased dedicated athletic fee would have on the withdrawal of general funds. For example, would raising the athletic fee only reduce the amount transferred from general funds, changing nothing to the bottom line athletic funding. To my mind, there is an equatable limit to the portion of student financing of the athletic function. I am aware of and agree there is a perception value that a successful athletic program benefits all graduates of an university. However, I do think there has to be a reasonable more tangible basis to fees. Medical, Library, Recreation facilities, parking, etc. are based to a large degree on the estimated value to the average student not just the cost of providing those services. When it gets to a point that the cost of athletic support per student is more than outsider ticket prices to the events, then it is very difficult to support those fees. At the current contribution rates, students are getting close to the cost of good season tickets to both football and basketball games. It appears that an upper limit of a annual maximum increase of about $120 per student would be equable, which gets close to the original RV proposal that was voted down. Any amount significantly above this in fees, in my view would be very difficult to pass and defend. Assuming a $60m stadium and outside funding of $30M (donations, naming, etc.) the new fees should just about pay the debt service. The downside is that student fee funding is being used for a stadium and not to directly upgrade other athletic functions.

NT has a lot of issues that have been discussed ad nauseum on this board, and I guess this article about TSU stirs the pot. This is the same Texas State that currently has to ask for donations to equip its teams and has yet to even scratch the surface in college athletics. NT is used as an example of futility because NT is losing; if this article were written five years ago, the references would have been entirely different. NT IMO is at a crossroads in college athletics, it can move forward and compete or remain at the bottom tier of college sports. All these football upgrades planned or in progress at other schools can only provide impetus to NT. I wish all these universities well with their plans, but I don't envy many. FAU and FIU who seem to have everything but fans, TSU who wants to be a BC team but must compete with the Juggernaut of juggernauts next door, Lamar who has once dropped football and now is scrambling to get back to the Southland level.

Have got to disagree with Harry on Kassell being the most deserving of this year's HOF class. Marilyn Marin was the best women's soccer player ever at NT and one of the best in the nation at the time. Chris Davis was not only one of the best basketball players in NT history but displayed the type of character that is very rare in athletics. Kelly was even before my time, so I won't comment on him; but if you were rating the athletes and their contribution to NT, I would favor both Marin and Davis over Kassell. Kassell was a great football player but I can think of many at NT that I would rate at his level or above. Marin dominated her sport at NT, she was selected as the Belt's all time best soccer player in 2006. Davis never played with much of a supporting cast at NT under the inept Trilli and JJ at the beginning of his NT career, but still managed to be arguably the best shooting guard NT has produced. A very strong class this year with recent great players from soccer, football and basketball.

The numbers quoted cover only the $4 something an hour enacted fairly recently for title 9 compliance. NT athletes is largely supported by student fees. Where do those extra millions that mysteriously balance the athletic budget every year come from? It may not be designated for athletes. but current students contribute much more than the numbers above show in activity fees. NT per full-time total student fees currently run just less than a $1000 a semester and I guess much more of those fees end up supporting athletics than any of the above dedicated fees. It would be interesting to know what the average contribution per student to the athletic department is at NT inclusive of what is transferred out of the general fund and those funds designed for athletics only. Then perhaps a meaningful comparison with other schools can be made and a determination of how much more can actually be gained through student fees. The well that everyone wants to drill for additional resources may not be as deep as many believe.

All very deserving, but I will do my annual rant; and complain that the late Walter Chapman continues to be ignored. One of the best football players in NT history and IMO the very best on any of the Fry teams.

Looking at her last year stats coupled with her only offer being from UTA, at first glance she is not all that impressive of a recruit. However, she was the most valuable player in her district as a jr. and was the leader of a 30-6 team that lost in the state quarter finals. Also she is now playing on one of the top club teams in the nation, she should be a good recruit for NT if not something a lot better.

Not sure what is positive about that blog. NT loses one of their most highly rated recruits and it is again demonstrated why mythical recruiting championships mean nothing in the Belt. Getting those signatures look good in recruiting season but, as anyone who has followed MTSU and Troy recruiting should know it doesn't matter much if those higher rated football players but definite academic risks never play. Troy does seem to get a lot of them in school although in many cases a year or more later. I hope the other two Mississippi jucos do make it here, if so NT has probably done better than average when dipping into that particular recruiting pool. As far as the stadium, I guess that was more positive than stating that the project was definitely a no-go, but not much more. After years to me it seems the message is, Hey there still is a chance for new stadium but NT still has not raised any significant funds to actually build. IMO, it sounds like a continuation of NT's policy of not really committing to anything but lets string this along some more. If nothing is built, the AD will be gone anyway; so nothing is lost if he continues to offer a little hope, and who knows NT might land that big donor from somewhere. No matter, there couldn't be a worst time for trying to sell the corporate world on making a big donation.