Monkeypox

Fran didn't want to coach in the WAC before it went tits up. I have serious doubts he'd go there now.

Unless Ditka's got Coach Chico as his assistant coach, he's in for a long day.

The premiere is free and open to the public. Don't know where you got your info. I got mine from the director.

Sorry if I talk about branding. I got degrees in marketing and graphic design from North Texas. So I'll continue to talk about it, since it's certainly relevant. Yes, the reason you know the Nebraska brand is they've built over the years. North Texas has no national brand. And as such, now is the time to decide what brand you want to bring. NORTH TEXAS CHOSE the Mean Green, not the eagles, as the athletics brand. You can still get the eagle logo on the field, on random merchandise, etc. Nobody's saying you can't. I'll take no logo over the eagle logo, and it looks bad on the helmet. I'll take the clawed "Mean Green" logo a thousand times over it. And, more to the point, if Nebraska and Alabama can build branding with a script A and an upper case N, then surely we don't need an eagle on our helmets. Though I would argue also that some of the most successful brands in college football are built upon being unique. Cornhuskers, Longhorns, Badgers, Gators, Seminoles, Buckeyes, etc. About the only exception in the big boys is Trojans. Otherwise, you know what school all those teams belong to.

I will risk the wrath of those pre-occupied with SMU and say there will also be a premiere of it tomorrow night at the Lakewood theatre in Dallas. 6:30pm.

Yep, it's too heavily weighted to the front top portion of the helmet. I've yet to see a helmet design with that logo look good. We're not the Eagles anymore. We're the Mean Green. For reference: http://www.meangreensports.com/ (Official Website of North Texas Mean Green Athletics) Eagle is still the mascot. I don't have a problem with Eagle-related organizations, as we have an Eagle mascot. We've already changed the fight song once when we changed the University name to UNT, so I don't have a problem changing it again, though I'm ambivalent towards it from a branding standpoint since only students and alumni of the school will be singing it. But Alabama gets by just fine with a scripted A, or 75-80% of merchandise that don't have an elephant on it.

I don't really want an eagle logo on our uniforms. A major part of branding is consistency. Our team name is the Mean Green. Our mascot is the eagle. The less opportunities for confusion the better. Just say no to eagle logos. We're the Mean Green. If we're going to spell something on our helmets, it should be that, and nothing else. If we're not going to spell anything out, our best bet is actually a plain green helmet, IMO. We don't have an NT logo in the current branding (that I have seen, anyway), so I don't think we'll see one. While I am also a fan of the wings on the Oregon jerseys (about the only thing I AM a fan of that they have), I don't really want to be the school that ripped off Oregon jerseys.

I think he meant hugs. Great hugs.

There are no words to describe how exciting this is.

I'm not sure how this will all play out, but here's my opinion. If Canales truly feels that NT is on the way up, I think he'd be best served staying here as an OC (if he were offered). Right now, his best move is likely to be lateral (from interim HC). Sun Belt, WAC, MAC are the most likely conferences to offer him an actual HC job, and those places, like this place, are probably going to have the same questions many on here had. And ADs that just had to fire a coach will in many cases be looking to make safer hires. So, he probably could get a HC job somewhere right now, but he's not going to have his pick of the litter. If I were him, I'd get myself somewhere as an OC/AHC that's either higher than NT or on the way up. He needs to put himself in a position to make his name a sexier one than "Interim HC of the 3-9 North Texas Mean Green." The other issue that works against Canales is longevity. Since his first stint at USF, he's not really been anywhere for a significant amount of time. A LOT of moving around, so it's hard for people looking at his resume to get a really clear picture of just what he brings to a team. I think he will be a good HC somewhere. I'm just not sure the timing is great for him, either, if he has higher aspirations.

Based on the records this year, not hard to see why. The Sun Belt was freaking godawful this year. Nobody wanted to win it.

I'm excited about the hire. It's hard for me NOT to be excited about a coaching change here. Pretty much anyone on the list would've been an upgrade. And North Texas is now showing more than ever with salary and facilities that they are committed to the program. Now for the wins!

I thought it had something to do with outscoring our opponents, executing gameplans, making tackles, etc. I mean, if you just want some pissed off kids, I can get you some of those. Don't have to pay $600k to get some pissed off teenagers and young men.

Yes, you must: 1) Have an exciting name, at least exciting enough for the people I talk to in the break room at work to get excited about. Those 6 people are the best representation of the potential North Texas fan base, and their input is important. 2) Have a winning record, at a big time school, that has no previous history of success. 3) Have the support of current players on the football team. I request they be polled on this matter, preferably in my break room at work. 4) Have successfully recruited NFL talent in Texas. 5) Have absolutely no baggage. None. I don't want to hire you and find out I've got to defend you for de-clawing your cats unnecessarily. It's like torture. It's one thing to beat a player, or your wife, or a player's wife, but since I personally find de-clawing cats repulsive and indefensible, you'd be out for this. I'd like copies of your kids' report cards, as well. I'll have the people at work look over them. 6) Have beaten K-State today. You didn't? Sorry, you're out.

I want it more than you. I don't even want to think about it, even though there's a move involved and I'd probably have to consult my loved ones about it. I shoot from the hip like that with major life decisions. It's one of my better qualities when it comes to running a football program... the not thinking about things.

That's a pretty big "Other than."

Nothing new there. DeLoach hasn't gotten the job done on D in a long time.

Who's all-time quarterback for this game?

I'm just trying to get clarity. Do SBC wins count or not for the next coach? This has nothing to do with Canales, because I assume no one on here would have different expectations for a new coach than they do an interim who just got the job. It has to do with expectations. If Leavitt comes in, goes 9-3 (8-0 in conference), then he's had a bad year, because the metric is only non-conference opponents, so at best he's 1-3. And that's only if the 1 non-conference win was a good team, and not one that we deem we "should" beat, like Army or Ball State or someone. So then how many years will it take us to get to where we can judge this next coach, since we can't count games within the conference where we currently reside? That could take a while. Now, on the other hand, if someone like Leavitt comes in here and goes 3-9 (0-8 SBC), then he's had a great year, because he won the games that matter (OOC games), and the ones he lost don't count. I can't count games as losses if I'm not allowed to count them as wins. Okay, that's maybe too hyperbolic. Regardless, what I seem to be hearing is that our new coach should go at LEAST 11-1 if he expects to have credit for a winning season. That's 8-0 SBC, 3-1 OOC. Or, we could be nice and expect him to break even on the real games, 10-2 (2-2 OOC), assuming, of course, that he doesn't have an Army or Rice on the schedule, because those are teams we SHOULD beat. Again, I don't really care if Canales gets the job, if that's who the University feels is best suited. I have my personal preferences, but I'm no AD. I just think it's silly to say that what our team is doing right now doesn't count. It's an insult to the interim coach and the players, IMO. I was one of the critics of Dickey, based on his lack of OOC success, so I understand the basic argument. I felt like we had achieved all we could as the bully of the weak sisters of the SBC. And that's still true. We weren't going anywhere JUST beating the Belt, and the Sun Belt still won't get you any press. But you still have to win the Sun Belt FIRST. Otherwise, you get press like "UT GETS UPSET BY TERRIBLE SUN BELT TEAM!!!" and all it does is point to the failures of the big school, and not the successes of the small one. Sadly, however, at this point in time, we have our work cut out for us just to make it back to the level of competing for a Sun Belt regularly. And I mean regularly, not competing in year one, then struggling the rest of the way out. Many coaches (and this could possibly be the case with our new interim) immediately turn a team around in the first couple of year, before reverting back to the status quo. People build them up after that first year, and then conveniently forget them by year 3 or 4, when they're on the hot seat.

Just so I understand this: None of you guys will count the SBC wins of our next coach? They don't count, right?

I would like to say there are things I care less about. The only problem is I wouldn't know what they were until someone posted a thread about them.

Time which is in turn costing him money. Not to mention that the lawsuit is actually costing him in public perception and future employability.

Actually, you just made me think of Pink's. May have to print a retraction on In-n-Out. People lined up down the streets for hot dogs. When you're at the point where something takes decades longer to get, is ten times more expensive, and tastes the same, perhaps a trip to the grocery store is in order.

In-N-Out Burger was the most overrated thing in Los Angeles, and that's saying something.

The lawsuit itself is also depressing the amount he can command on the market. There are a number of teams that won't touch him with a 10-ft pole right now. There's a number that, win or lose, aren't going to take someone who's sued their former employer, worried he's a guy who'll hold a grudge if fired for ANY reason. As far as clearing his name, it's a pipe dream. No matter what happens, those that believe him will go on believing him. Those that don't, won't. The only group that gains strength from this are those that just want him to move on. That's how a court trial works. Both sides end up looking uglier to the public than they did before, and everyone tires of hearing it. I think Jim Leavitt is an outstanding coach. I believe something DID happen, but that Leavitt's been railroaded. But at this time, he's not doing anything to help himself get his next job. He clearly has no interest in moving on at this point in time. That's his decision, but I think it's a poor one. In the end, it very well could benefit a team willing to take a chance on him now. On the other hand, it could also provide an unnecessary distraction for the first year or two he's at that next stop.