McCarney juggles long hours with sleep, exercise

[greenit]

@FFR

What tunes do you know?

@Harry, what has happened to the quote feature lately? It has stopped working for me (and others) lately. Browser setting?

[NT80]

That tells me that each recruiting class has gotten better since his first.

I'm not seeing it. The QB-shuffle-mess I saw last season says the evaluation process and/or recruiting is flawed. The OL regressed from the Bowl year and now that experience is gone, the Defense gave up 10 more points per game, and the special teams were not very special. And we still can't seem to find any DT's in the entire country that want to come to NT. Otherwise, yeah, I guess we're fine.

[FirefightnRick]

@FFR

What tunes do you know?

How about "The Beginning of the End" by Rob Zombie?

Rick

[GrandGreen]

4-8 tells me that his first recruiting class wasn't that great... and coming off the disaster that Dodge left, that should be expected.

I saw lots of Fr. and Soph's on the field. That tells me that each recruiting class has gotten better since his first.

Lots of frs and sophs on the field, compared to who? I am not at all sure that recruiting has gotten better . I hope it has but I don't think you can make that case based on last season. NT didn't play that many underclassmen especially considering that the team was so poor.

[Ben Gooding]

Seeing a lot of fr and so on the field in year 4 actually indicates poor recruiting in this regimes early signing classes. It's kind of head scratching for anyone to think otherwise, unless of course we had a sudden influx of instant NFL caliber players in this last recruiting class; which didn't happen.

[VideoEagle]

Seeing a lot of fr and so on the field in year 4 actually indicates poor recruiting in this regimes early signing classes. It's kind of head scratching for anyone to think otherwise, unless of course we had a sudden influx of instant NFL caliber players in this last recruiting class; which didn't happen.

What UNT86 was pointing out was that recruiting tends to improve as the team gets better. The better the record, the better the recruits the next year. After the Dodge years, having a poor class was to be expected based on that.

[UNT90]

Getting a contract extension for having the first winning season in forever isn't the problem. NOT extending the contract means you are not playing real football as an extension after a bowl season is the norm for both P5 and G5 schools.

The problem is what are you doing after a losing season. That doesn't mean automatically fire everyone but it does mean some serious evaluations and at least having some kind of consequences. There are a lot of steps between nothing and being fired!

Agree, but if you are going to extend (which was needed for recruiting purposes alone), you have to be willing to bite the bullet and buy out that contract if things don't go well. We are not to that point, but I really doubt UNTs willingness to do it if we do get to that point (like a 1 win season next year).

We simply won't buy out a contract until year number 4. And if that's the way it's going to be, we shouldn't be extending them, either.

[FirefightnRick]

Agree, but if you are going to extend (which was needed for recruiting purposes alone), you have to be willing to bite the bullet and buy out that contract if things don't go well. We are not to that point, but I really doubt UNTs willingness to do it if we do get to that point (like a 1 win season next year).

We simply won't buy out a contract until year number 4. And if that's the way it's going to be, we shouldn't be extending them, either.

It's like we don't know who we are. We aren't who we thought we weren't?

Rick

[UNT90]

It's like athletics is an afterthought at UNT...

Oh ya, I forgot...

[GrandGreen]

What UNT86 was pointing out was that recruiting tends to improve as the team gets better. The better the record, the better the recruits the next year. After the Dodge years, having a poor class was to be expected based on that.

No, generally a new coach brings in added excitement and a substantial uptick from a down program. You saw that with Dodge and Dickey, but not McCarney.

[UNT90]

After the Dodge years, having a poor class was to be expected based on that.

Did you really just say that? Really?

Read it again. Is that really the expectations you have for UNT football?

No wonder we continually suck. People are just fine with it.

[VideoEagle]

Agree, but if you are going to extend (which was needed for recruiting purposes alone), you have to be willing to bite the bullet and buy out that contract if things don't go well. We are not to that point, but I really doubt UNTs willingness to do it if we do get to that point (like a 1 win season next year).

We simply won't buy out a contract until year number 4. And if that's the way it's going to be, we shouldn't be extending them, either.

Very true, you should be able to do both. However, if you extend the contract you make recruiting better players more likely and thus having a better season more likely. If you don't extend the contract, you make it more likely you will need to buy out the contract of the coach but now at a lower rate.

Which is better, trying to succeed and not needing to buy out the contract or planning to fail and make it more likely you will fail. I work in media. Trying to succeed gets you credit, but being planning to fail only means your replacement has more options!

If you can only do one of the two, prepare to succeed or prepare to pay for a buy out, I vote for prepare to succeed every time!

[VideoEagle]

No, generally a new coach brings in added excitement and a substantial uptick from a down program. You saw that with Dodge and Dickey, but not McCarney.

Seriously? No excitement and an uptick when McCarney started? Let's see, the Morning News and ESPN both did articles on how NT was finally taking steps to compete at the FBS level. Season ticket sales went up. While you might not have been, most of the NT people I know were very excited over the first real coach since Hayden Fry.

[UNT90]

Very true, you should be able to do both. However, if you extend the contract you make recruiting better players more likely and thus having a better season more likely. If you don't extend the contract, you make it more likely you will need to buy out the contract of the coach but now at a lower rate.

Which is better, trying to succeed and not needing to buy out the contract or planning to fail and make it more likely you will fail. I work in media. Trying to succeed gets you credit, but being planning to fail only means your replacement has more options!

If you can only do one of the two, prepare to succeed or prepare to pay for a buy out, I vote for prepare to succeed every time!

You aren't preparing to succeed when you refuse to fix an obvious problem. There is nothing that screams "we accept failure" like failing to fix an obvious problem.

See UNT basketball as a prime example.

Of you don't do both, you simply aren't committed to winning. Of course, that has been obvious at UNT for a very long time.

Edited December 20, 2014 by UNT90

[FirefightnRick]

HS recruits care most about playing time. Not how long the coach that recruited them is going to be there. It's an add-on, but not a decisive factor.

Rick

[VideoEagle]

You aren't preparing to succeed when you refuse to fix an obvious problem. There is nothing that screams "we accept failure" like failing to fix an obvious problem.

See UNT basketball as a prime example.

Hold on, what is the "obvious problem" of which you write? The contract extension was the "obvious problem?" Not extending after what is one of the best seasons in 100 years of football, THAT would show a serious problem!

Now Bedford IS a problem, but that isn't what we are discussing here. I'm not going to argue we should have fired Bedford after last year! That doesn't change rewarding the football coach for being successful.

Edited December 20, 2014 by VideoEagle

[FirefightnRick]

Hold on, what is the "obvious problem" of which you write? The contract extension was the "obvious problem?" Not extending after what is one of the best seasons in 100 years of football, THAT would show a serious problem!

Now Bedford IS a problem, but that isn't what we are discussing here.

The extension isn't the problem, it's the 3 additional years that is.

Rick

[Ben Gooding]

HS recruits care most about playing time. Not how long the coach that recruited them is going to be there. It's an add-on, but not a decisive factor.

Rick

I completely disagree. If all HS kids cared about was playing time then there would be this thing called parity among CFB. The same parity that the P5 continues never let happen. HS kids, a lot of them anyway, are so struck on the idea of getting "big time" P5 offers. And way more often than not a kid will jump on that P5 offer than a Joe Schmoe offer from a G5. It has everything to do with media coverage and tv contracts. They are going to continue to push P5 games into regions in an attempt to flood the area and the recruits eyeballs with P5 programs. Espn if they so chose to could turn a lot of G5's into house hold programs with media instant never-ending coverage. It's just the way it is.

[greenit]

I certainly don't mind Mac in the HC job. I even like the idea that we have committed to him long term. He brings credibility to the program and contacts within the industry. Coordinators and position coaches are a different story. Position coaches are supposed to recruit and should be judged primarily on their recruiting RESULTS. Coordinators should be judged on the production of their units on the field based on the talent they have to work with.

I feel the biggest challenge is for Mac to get out of the details and manage. He is coming from an individual contributor role (DLine coach) and now needs to stay out of the coordinating details and just manage his staff. It is hard to tell for sure, but it certainly 'feels' like he is way too involved in the offense. As has been mentioned before, see Patterson at TCU for an example. In business, it is typically a liberating experience when you can transition an individual contributor to a manager. Many of them fail making the transition and mask it by just being a 'super task master' because that is what has made them successful as an IC, but they really aren't being a good 'manager'.

[FirefightnRick]

I completely disagree.If all HS kids cared about was playing time then there would be this thing called parity among CFB. The same parity that the P5 continues never let happen. HS kids, a lot of them anyway, are so struck on the idea of getting "big time" P5 offers. And way more often than not a kid will jump on that P5 offer than a Joe Schmoe offer from a G5. It has everything to do with media coverage and tv contracts. They are going to continue to push P5 games into regions in an attempt to flood the area and the recruits eyeballs with P5 programs. Espn if they so chose to could turn a lot of G5's into house hold programs with media instant never-ending coverage. It's just the way it is.

That's fine to disagree. I'm simply basing my opinion on every player's parent I've ever asked that question to. And that goes back to the 80's.

I'm also basing it on a survey in the star telegram several years ago trying to find the most important issue to a recruit in order to justify whether or not schools building facilities was the deciding factor in a players' choice. It was overwhelmingly "PLAYING TIME".

I'm also basing my opinion on quotes from just about every recruit interviewed...."the coaches said I have a chance to come in right away and make a difference and play". Who hasn't seen this comment a thousand times over? I have.

Rick

[meangreenbob]

I believe that both the length of contract extension as well as the increase in salary were the result of someone acting on "emotion" and not common sense and good business logic. It squeals of incompetence.

[greenminer]

Coaching tenure is much more important to the elite prospects that have it in their head to compete for national titles and be groomed for the NFL. Until our program is at that level, we are going to get recruits who put PT at a higher priority.

Edited December 20, 2014 by greenminer

[Ben Gooding]

The comment of "Coach said I could come in and compete for playing time" is a redundant, cliche comment. Of course coaches say that to these guys, but that's not the reality of the situation. If guys truly went places based on playing time there would be much more parity throughout CFB, but there's not. Power programs horde prospects. They just do, they always have bad always will. Until recruits start going places legitimately based on playing time the P5 and particularly the bluebloods within the P5 are going to continue widening that talent gap. Half of the P5 programs have better backup QB's than most of the G5's starting QB's.

Now a lot of these guys THINK they are going to show up on campus and roll their helmet out and start or get playing time, but that's not reality. It's the exception, not the norm.

Prine example is about an hour and a half south of Dallas. Any QB on Baylor's roster could transfer to North Texas and be an All-Conference QB. Same could be said about a lot of other programs at QB and other positions, particularly DL.

[UNT90]

Hold on, what is the "obvious problem" of which you write? The contract extension was the "obvious problem?" Not extending after what is one of the best seasons in 100 years of football, THAT would show a serious problem!

Now Bedford IS a problem, but that isn't what we are discussing here. I'm not going to argue we should have fired Bedford after last year! That doesn't change rewarding the football coach for being successful.

I was talking about Benford. We won't fire him because we don't want to pay out his contract.

If Mac goes 0-12 next year, we won't fire him, either. That's why I can see some of the criticism for extending him. All you have to do is look at our history. Dodge should have been fired after year 3. Nope. Couldn't pay out 2 years of a contract.

It's all about the perceived bottom line at UNT.

[VideoEagle]

I was talking about Benford. We won't fire him because we don't want to pay out his contract.

If Mac goes 0-12 next year, we won't fire him, either. That's why I can see some of the criticism for extending him. All you have to do is look at our history. Dodge should have been fired after year 3. Nope. Couldn't pay out 2 years of a contract.

It's all about the perceived bottom line at UNT.

I"m not going to disagree about Bedford. And I'm not worried about what should have been done about Dodge as you can't change the past.

But are you really saying we shouldn't reward what is arguably the best year in the 100 year history of football with a multi-year contract extension because he MIGHT go 0-12 two years after the fact? And do this KNOWING that not giving such an extension actually makes it more likely we will go 0-12? Are you really that beaten down eleven months after one of our best years ever?

Yes, Bedford is a problem we are not fixing. That doesn't mean we should sabotage other programs after they have been successful. You fix the problems you can, when you can. And you try to find a way to mitigate the damages the other problems cause until you can fix them one way or another.