GrandGreen

I guess playing the worst team in Texas is not going has well as the ASU fans predicted.

Do many of you really believe a team that goes up 33-7 in the first half, never punts and scored on every position; is going to be really fired up the second half? I am happy that NT did not fold in the second half, I think that is definitely a positive but to somehow suggest NT was ever in this game is an enormous stretch. For those that did not watch on the computer broadcast, there was a quote when the radio station was playing commercials in the second half when the announcer opined it was fortunate that NT (offense) is so inept. This was an embarrassing loss , Akron had scored 10 points in the first half in its first three games.

There is actually an article on the official site about the tournament this weekend. However, there is no information about the team, new players, etc. It would seem to me that a lot more could have been done to promote a team with probably the most high profile non-revenue sport coach hire in decades and a brand new facility.

Was I not clear enough that I do not want or need your communication advise. If you want to limit the board to those that only agree with you go ahead. The old "go do something that can fix the problem concept" kind of limits the idea of a messageboard does it not? IMO a messageboard is a great place to share opionions and that is what I am doing. If anyone wants to communicate with the BOR, Administation, Coaches, etc., I think most are intelligent enough to do it and don't need this forum to accomplish that task. To the question, is Louisville a good model to follow. The answer is absolutely as are many other schools that did not settle for mediocrity. Are they or anyone else an exact match; of course not. It is much easy to find reasons to not do something than act. As far as where should NT go from here, I don't think there are any magic bullets and I certainly am not going to come up with anything that is not obvious. However, what I would like to see are: 1. A strong statement of support for athletics from the BOR and Administration. 2. A transparent plan to achieve the deserved goals. 3. The hiring of a top notch professional athletic development staff with lofty goals. Pay a lot and expect/demand a lot in return. 4. Termination of any employee who downgrades the University or continues to make statements that are not in the best interest of the University. Nothing more than any business would require. 5. Stop fucus on why NT cannot achieve and focus on the great number of positives of the University. Cerebus, I am sure you are worried about the time I've spend with this post, and I appreciate the concern. Not only could I have written a lot of emails, I could have also got a good start on mowing the lawn. In truth, we all as NT fans want the program to be the best it can be and in my mind part of the fun of being a fan is the BS that passes as sport talk.

Actually I though a messageboard was a place to exchange ideas and yes, rave and rant if that is what you want to do. And being a contributing fan for over 30 years, I don't think I need your advice on who, when, or how to communicate. Frankly, I see a lot of excuses in the above response. Poor NT does not have a traditional giving fan base, has to compete with pro sports, historical indifference to the athletic program, etc. IMO, this is the type of thinking that has held NT back for decades. I am sure there were masses of people that thought Louisville was crazy to think they could compete with the great Kentucky University and the local fan base only cared about horse racing and basketball.

CUSA can be a goal but I would not bet on it happening anytime soon. I see some on here declare that UTEP was the natural and only choice for CUSA in the last expansion. UTEP was definitely outside of the desired footprint for CUSA and at the time had close to the worst football record in the NCAA. Their basketball program and attendence were definite plusses. However, Imo I think their biggest advantage was they were not viewed as competition to the privates in Western CUSA. Historically they were an awful football team and then and now are not big recruiting threats in the majority of Texas or Louisiana and Oklahoma. Both in terms of location and economics, NT and in fact La Tech made a lot more sense. Think of sending your volleyball team to EL Paso every year instead of Denton for the teams of W. CUSA. What would be an easy and relatively inexpensive bus trip to Denton from Tulsa, Dallas and Houston becomes a flight to El Paso and for Tulane an even bigger travel issue. I am not sure why attendence is even a major factor. Conference members payouts are not determined by the home team attendence. Facts are that most of W. Cusa football attendence is no better than NT. My point is that the membership process is more politics than logic and the same factors that kept NT out of CUSA last time will likely still be present at the next realignment. And these factors have little to do with w/l records, facilities and attendence.

How do you think they got a budget of 35M? Is that not the point, that NT has to improve the resources it works with. I doubt Louisville back when they were a conference mate of NT had a football budget much difference than NT. Why can't NT decide to be a BCS school and then set a plan and raise and spent the money to do it like you stated that UL did? Why was UL situation any different than the one NT is in? You think their 35 million budget just magically appeared. No they worked for years/decades to upgrade program.

Marcus Camper based on one season maybe the best receiver ever at NT. Great speed and hands, sensational in the much talked about 1988 UT game. QB in high school. Luis Silva?

Actually back in ancient times NT had a much better football program. Basketball was not close, however NT along with Houston and UTEP where way a head of the Texas basketball scene. An advantage that NT failed horribly to use and build on. This woe is NT thing although certainly valid on many levels gets to be a self fulfilling excuse. The fact is that NT is a major university in a football hotbed state and sets in arguably the best recruiting area in the nation. The Universtiy continues to expand as the metromess grows north. While NT is short on football tradition compared to a lot of major players, many teams with much less tradition and resources have and continue to past NT by. You can't compare Denton to Louisville but you certainly can compare a sma of close to six million people that NT shares with two relatively small private universities.

Thanks for your input. It is great to have someone respond that cares about these non-revenue sports and is obviously much closer to the program than the average fan.

In the days of the "bigs" having mega stadiums it makes no economic sense for them to play away ooc games. Other than just wanting to have an away game to prepare for conference or a recruiting presense in a particular area there is no justification for an away game for the "Bigs". Texas for example sells approx. 80,000 seats at $50 for a $4,000,000 gate. Give, patsy of the week. $500,000 and net $3,500,000. In addition, add to that all the concession, advertisment, and parking revenues, the fact you have no travel expenses and have a practical zero chance of losing and it is easy to see why it is highly unlikely any of these teams are going be frequent travelers. For example, I doubt even the Texas/Ohio State home and away games are financially justified. Both of these teams are going to have sell outs or near sell outs reguardless of who they play. So unless the TV monies offset the loss of revenue from a home game, the game cannot be financially justified. Add the possibility of a loss into the mix and you can see why these types of ooc mega-games are extremely rare. It will never happen, but I think the NCAA in the spirit of fareness and to further overall competition should step in and mandate teams have a minimun number of away ooc games.

Yes I think Vito was reaching here to make a point, all of these guys were very questionable recruits. Stanley was 2nd team juco all american but the fact that he was not highly recruited should have been a strong signal. Vito does not address the point that a lot if not the majority of offensive linemen are originally recruited as defensive players. Generally linemen prefer the defensive side and the more talented high school players are on the defense. Therefore, they are recruited as defensive linemen and many converted to offense as it is obvious that their playing time will be limited on the defense. Alexander, Peachey, Foster, Veneges were all recruited as defensive players. It is rare at NT when a linemen such as Lineberry is recruited as an offensive player.

Seems like NT has a big chemistry problem on this team. With 10 starters returning and an excellent recruiting year, NT should not have a problem with a bad Grambling team no matter where played or how tired. Better get their act together unlike football were everyone always thinks the teams in the Belt are getting better in women's soccer I think they actually are. Denver looks like they are back to form and MTSU with a team of foreigners looks much improved.

I have never understood this fan standing macho thing. What does this accomplish other than making it impossible for many people to see the game much less be comfortable? Not only do a lot of people old and young not want to stand up a whole game, many people who are vertically challenged can't see at all if everyone is standing. I guess short people, children, people with health problems, and yes even lazy people should not go to games because it offends those fans that for some reason think it is manitory to stand the whole game. If standing is something you got to do go to the student side or end zones and have a blast.

Hardly think Marshall is in central texas. I would take Parker's offensive scheme in a second over DD and I never heard Parker be anything but positive about NT. Parker did not win and he was replaced, an unique reaction. As far as worst coach at UNT ever, not even close.

Don't forget that DD is signed thru 2009. If the buyout is not a lot less then his current salary then this would be a great obstacle to making a coaching change. I would still like to know what the logic was in extending DD and RV contracts. Either one would have been gone in a heartbeat if another opportunity was extended. I can see giving extensions but why long term contracts that seem to tie down no one but the University? Big pay for coaches does not guarantee success. At this point, I think making a change would be of benefit even if we go with a current staff member such as Evans. Anyone that at least as a positive approach would be a big improvement imo. However, I do agree that making a statement like hiring a perceived "big time" coach would greatly benefit the program. At that point it becomes just a benefit versus cost analysis that measures projected revenues versus costs. Paying a head coach a big salary that can substantially increase ticket sales and serve as a catalyst for a new stadium would be a bargain for the University. Truth is there are not going to be any changes until after the season, if at all. My best-case scenario is that the team wins out and DD gets his dream job. The worst case is that NT limps to 4 or 5 wins or less in the Belt and no change are made.

Do you actually believe the offensive game plan is not a DD product? IMO replacing RF would not have any significant effect on the plays called. Trying to run up the middle, when NT has at most three 1a caliber offensive linemen, is going to be a losing situation. Anyone else notice that the first offensive lineman off the bench is a walk on freshman? NT just does not have the talent to run DD's offense against the majority of teams. Not only does NT not have the offensive line, NT is down to one solid running back. DD's limited success imo has been due to having better players than the other Belt teams. This advantage has been lost as recruiting has continued to decline. In general secondary, linebackers and receivers are much easier positions to recruit good players. There are just a lot more of them and there are going to be more available at NT current level of recruiting. Good linemen, quackerbacks and running backs are positions that are more difficult to obtain and it is difficult for DD, who recruits around the margins, to get the quality necessary.

No, and no.Do you remember the article comparing Adrian Peterson and Jamario Thomas? It made mention that DD did try and recruit Peterson, but received a postacrd in the mail saying No thank you. Do you remember the article 6 months ago that mentioned that we are heavy after some of the South Grand Prairie lineman? Just because DD doesn't report recruiting to the fans doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That's not very exciting for the fans, but its something that we have to live with. ←

IMO DD does not think he can compete with the "big schools (defined as any school in 1A and not in the Belt)" and does not bother. 70 to 80% of the players that get 1a offers will have committed before DD gets around to getting his first committment. This secret stuff is total BS, DD waits for the "big schools" to get their limit and then starts to truely recruit. Two years ago DD commented that he signed all but two or three that he offered ships. I had much rather he be turned down a lot more and actually go after players that have other choices. DD and staff do a good job of identifying players but awful in getting players that are recruited by other programs. A coach that does not believe in the program/university cannot sell the program. No I do not expect NT to be able to recruit against BCS level programs, but if we can't recruit at least at the CUSA level; how is the program ever going to advance?

I actually think DD is a good x and o coach. I think he gets a lot out of the players he has. Having said this I would have let him go long ago, because of his public "woe is me" and "I am better than the program" attitude. Maybe he is just a realist but give me a dreamer that can and will sell the program. I would really like to know what he wants to accomplish by his constant "poor me" public statements that emphasize the lack of support and resources available to him. Did someone lie to him when he was hired and tell him he was going to have BCS level support? Does he really think he would have been selected as head coach if NT had the resources he covets? I unlike a few, do think winning the conference 4 straight years and having 26 straight conference wins were great accomplishments and DD deserves credit for these feats. However, I have never seen a worst coach at representing the University's interest. I do think DD is trying to change but something within him just will not allow him to be consistently positive relative to his situation at NT. DD is very careful in his coach speak about opponents, but seems to have little control over his remarks aimed at the University, support and fans.

Anyone in a power conference that complains about unfair competition when playing a MAC team is beyond stupid. I guess the vast differences in resources between the power conference team and the "purchased win team" are not advantages, nor is the fact that it was a home game. This coach is following up an embarrassing loss with even more embarrassing statements.