La Tech mentioned as Top Candidate for AAC

GrandGreen · August 2, 2016

9 hours ago, Green Otaku said:

So then please explain to us what you meant by saying winning is the easiest factor to change?

Not sure I can help. It seems obvious to me that winning is easier than developing a large tier one school and changing locations is impossible. Does anyone really think that Baker and Littrell would have taken those jobs if they thought their odds of turning around the program were that difficult?

I think the President and BOR have actually done the hard part, adequately funding a fb division program. Wins are still not guaranteed, but success is a lot more likely at NT. Poor recruiting by Mac and an AD a way too comfortable with the status quo have created some big hurdles to overcome. However, it can be done and relatively quickly.

Three years ago, NT was thought to be one of the top teams in the West and La Tech and USM were horrible. That didn't take long to reverse.

Aquila_Viridis · August 3, 2016

In the non-athletic realm, I will take this opportunity to mention that in the latest Forbes rankings, NT moved up 17 places from 570 to 553. In the US News rankings we are still in the National Universities group below #200 that does not get a published rank. But at least the Forbes one is some good progress.

TreeFiddy · August 3, 2016

Just now, Aquila_Viridis said:

In the non-athletic realm, I will take this opportunity to mention that in the latest Forbes rankings, NT moved up 17 places from 570 to 553. In the US News rankings we are still in the National Universities group below #200 that does not get a published rank. But at least the Forbes one is some good progress.

Does anyone know if the Carnegie Tier 1 research ranking will have an impact on the USNWR ranking? Are there Carnegie Tier1 schools that are not in the top 200 USNWR ranking?

Aquila_Viridis · August 3, 2016

I have never understood the whole tier 1 thing and it seems there are multiple tier 1 formats. The US news ranking is based very much on the strength of incoming classes like test scores and HS class rank and how many people a school rejects. The Forbes one is more about how successful the students are both during school and after.

untjim1995 · August 3, 2016

12 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Not sure I can help. It seems obvious to me that winning is easier than developing a large tier one school and changing locations is impossible. Does anyone really think that Baker and Littrell would have taken those jobs if they thought their odds of turning around the program were that difficult?

I think the President and BOR have actually done the hard part, adequately funding a fb division program. Wins are still not guaranteed, but success is a lot more likely at NT. Poor recruiting by Mac and an AD a way too comfortable with the status quo have created some big hurdles to overcome. However, it can be done and relatively quickly.

Three years ago, NT was thought to be one of the top teams in the West and La Tech and USM were horrible. That didn't take long to reverse.

Baker took the job because it paid well and got him the hell out of Mizzou, the worst big university in the country right now--seriously, the last administration member to leave needs to remember to turn out the lights in Columbia.

Littrell took the job because it was a huge step up in pay, gave him the chance to build up his resume very fast, and see if he can cut it as a head coach at this level. If he fails, he will have a job like he had at UNC pretty much anywhere he wants, both from his success at UNC and the fact that nobody in the college football ranks is going to hold it against him if he can't turn this around from the mountain of dogshit we are under right now.

We made two very good hires, on paper, but the reality is that if either of these see football succeed here in the next three seasons like it did at Southern Miss last year, neither of them will be working here afterwards.

GrandGreen · August 3, 2016

8 hours ago, untjim1995 said:

Baker took the job because it paid well and got him the hell out of Mizzou, the worst big university in the country right now--seriously, the last administration member to leave needs to remember to turn out the lights in Columbia.

Littrell took the job because it was a huge step up in pay, gave him the chance to build up his resume very fast, and see if he can cut it as a head coach at this level. If he fails, he will have a job like he had at UNC pretty much anywhere he wants, both from his success at UNC and the fact that nobody in the college football ranks is going to hold it against him if he can't turn this around from the mountain of dogshit we are under right now.

We made two very good hires, on paper, but the reality is that if either of these see football succeed here in the next three seasons like it did at Southern Miss last year, neither of them will be working here afterwards.

Obviously both men are ambitious and willing to take on the challenges at NT. Not sure what your point is, money and opportunity are what lures most to new jobs.

I suspect both Littrell and Baker had other options than to take over a program that you think is next to hopeless. I really don't understand why a few fans such as you are so pessimistic at a time that is as promising as it has been at NT since Fry left for Iowa. Yes, there are problems at NT; RV and McCarney would have not been fired if that was not the case. You see doggy-do where I see a school that has finally decided to take college athletics seriously.

Matt Simon ran off over 50 players his first year, had a purely vicious schedule compared to anyone. Played in Fouts, had few resources and not even a conference. DD and Dodge had slightly easier tasks, but still had nothing like the resources that the new staff controls. McCarney was a failure, resources were not the issue; he was just a bad hire. That is going to happen at any level of football, and there is no guarantee that Littrell and Baker are going to be better. However, I do believe they have the backing and necessary resources to be successful. Something that Rust, Fry, Moore, Tyler, Nelson, Parker, Simon, Dickey and Dodge didn't have.

keith · August 3, 2016

10 hours ago, Aquila_Viridis said:

I have never understood the whole tier 1 thing and it seems there are multiple tier 1 formats. The US news ranking is based very much on the strength of incoming classes like test scores and HS class rank and how many people a school rejects. The Forbes one is more about how successful the students are both during school and after.

I believe retention (how many incoming freshman come back after the first year) and four year graduation rates (we are at 26%) weigh heavily in the rating. Parents want to know that their kids have a good chance of graduating in 4 years. Both of these measures go directly to the students that are accepted and ultimately enroll in the university. They also see endowment is also important. Ours is pretty small for a university our size, but has gotten better in the last few years.

Aldo · August 3, 2016

On 8/2/2016 at 10:46 AM, GrandGreen said:

Three years ago, NT was thought to be one of the top teams in the West and La Tech and USM were horrible. That didn't take long to reverse.

Not to take away from what you said because I agree with it, but LaTech and USM had bumps in the road. We had one good year.

Why do I feel like Kanye right now?

But yes, we have been put in a situation to succeed. Now we must do it.

Green Otaku · August 3, 2016

On 8/2/2016 at 8:46 AM, GrandGreen said:

Not sure I can help. It seems obvious to me that winning is easier than developing a large tier one school and changing locations is impossible. Does anyone really think that Baker and Littrell would have taken those jobs if they thought their odds of turning around the program were that difficult?

I think the President and BOR have actually done the hard part, adequately funding a fb division program. Wins are still not guaranteed, but success is a lot more likely at NT. Poor recruiting by Mac and an AD a way too comfortable with the status quo have created some big hurdles to overcome. However, it can be done and relatively quickly.

Three years ago, NT was thought to be one of the top teams in the West and La Tech and USM were horrible. That didn't take long to reverse.

I don't disagree with some of your points, but I get the impression from the board as a whole that if we pump enough money into the program it's a guarantee that we will win. My point was that kind of thinking is an oversimplification of how many endless variables affect a program. It's like people have short memories because I remember those saying if we only had a new stadium we would win, we would get recruits, we would sell out games, etc. I'm not saying Apogee doesn't help, but people are always daydreaming that if we had "such and such" that one thing would magically turn the program around. Then they quickly forget about it and move on to the next thing.

wardly · August 3, 2016

If money was the only issue in winning then SMU would be National Champions. However, you must be able to compete monetarily when hiring coaches and A.D.'s, and then there is no guarantee of success .Since my freshman year of 1961, only Fry,Jones, and Ashton have moved on to greener pastures.Otis Mitchell retired from coaching football in the early 60's, and since then we have fired a boat load of head coaches in our 3 major sports.Quite frankly, I think the only reason we are able to fill athletic positions is that we must look good at closing time.

Edited August 4, 2016 by wardly
forgot about Jerry Moore moving to Texas Tech

Wag Tag · August 3, 2016

13 hours ago, untjim1995 said:

Baker took the job because it paid well and got him the hell out of Mizzou, the worst big university in the country right now--seriously, the last administration member to leave needs to remember to turn out the lights in Columbia.

Littrell took the job because it was a huge step up in pay, gave him the chance to build up his resume very fast, and see if he can cut it as a head coach at this level. If he fails, he will have a job like he had at UNC pretty much anywhere he wants, both from his success at UNC and the fact that nobody in the college football ranks is going to hold it against him if he can't turn this around from the mountain of dogshit we are under right now.

We made two very good hires, on paper, but the reality is that if either of these see football succeed here in the next three seasons like it did at Southern Miss last year, neither of them will be working here afterwards.

They took the job because of pay??? At 37 pay is part of it but OPPORTUNITY is number one. They did not take the jobs to fade away. I hope this is a stepping stone for all our coaches!

UNT90 · August 3, 2016

2 hours ago, Wag Tag said:

They took the job because of pay??? At 37 pay is part of it but OPPORTUNITY is number one. They did not take the jobs to fade away. I hope this is a stepping stone for all our coaches!

Pay indicates commitment by UNT toward winning.