I'll get it started

Got5onIt · December 7, 2005

M.Scott--
There is no use being "subjective" if you can place "realistic" criteria on a problem.
I do not believe that we can say, "fire DD" without agreeing what is expected of him & his coaching staff next year, in very realistic terms!!
I think the realistic criteria of winning the SBC and winning 2 OOC games is viable for our current team and coaching staff.
If the current coaching staff can not come up with appropriate "game plans" to win SBC and OOC games and be competitive then I guess I will have to stand in line to sign the petition to give DD his walking papers. One great line in, "The Hunt for Red October" the Admiral told the CIA agent aboard the carrier, "Hell son, even the Russians don't take a dump without a plan." Well, we need a plan and it ain't Charmin.
←

Wow, and I thought you were an L&A.

Great points. I agree with eveything you said.

Got5onIt · December 7, 2005

"Give me Barnett, or give me death."

Actually, I'd rather have Neuheisel but Gary Barnett is a great coach.

He loves to run the football and would fit in perfectly at NT.

Can you believe Barnett at one point, had Chris Brown, Bobby Purify, Marcus Houston, & Brian Calhoun on the same team, 4 deep at RB????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited December 7, 2005 by Got5onIt

ipEAGLE · December 7, 2005

Just imagine Barnett at NT... we would average 30,000 a season and gain a lot of media attention.

MeanMag · December 7, 2005

That is exactly my point. Back to SBC wins and no or one OOC wins. Is that all we want from this program?
←

This is my point, You are being unrealistic. You want to go from 2-9 to 10-1 in one year?! I don't care what coach is here, It's not happening!!

At this point, for next year? Yea, being able to school the sunbelt is all I want for this program. That and a win over SMU. I don't know if you noticed, but we lost the Sunbelt this year. What good is winning an out of conference game if we cant regularly beat up on the lowest of the low?

It seems like we didn't have a problem being 9-3 until we ended 2-9. It's no wonder sometimes why we are referred to as the idiot board

I hate to burst your bubble, but if all you want is to be 10-1 next season you are going to be sadly dissappointed. Then you will call for Dickey's head, and by god if he goes 9-2 next season just to spite you (I hope he does), I will point back to this thread and tell you that it's still not good enough for you after a 2-9 year.

Give me a break.

untbowler · December 7, 2005

This is my point, You are being unrealistic. You want to go from 2-9 to 10-1 in one year?! I don't care what coach is here, It's not happening!!
At this point, for next year? Yea, being able to school the sunbelt is all I want for this program. That and a win over SMU. I don't know if you noticed, but we lost the Sunbelt this year. What good is winning an out of conference game if we cant regularly beat up on the lowest of the low?
It seems like we didn't have a problem being 9-3 until we ended 2-9. It's no wonder sometimes why we are referred to as the idiot board
I hate to burst your bubble, but if all you want is to be 10-1 next season you are going to be sadly dissappointed. Then you will call for Dickey's head, and by god if he goes 9-2 next season just to spite you (I hope he does), I will point back to this thread and tell you that it's still not good enough for you after a 2-9 year.
Give me a break.
←

Why is 10-1 not realistic???

We have 3 mid-majors and one blood game??

We should win the Sun Belt without any losses and I am sorry but Tulsa, La. Tech, and SMU should not be beating us, especially after the 4 straight bowls, that means our coaches are not recruiting the talent to stay up with everyone else.

MeanMag · December 7, 2005

Why is 10-1 not realistic???
We have 3 mid-majors and one blood game??
We should win the Sun Belt without any losses and I am sorry but Tulsa, La. Tech, and SMU should not be beating us, especially after the 4 straight bowls, that means our coaches are not recruiting the talent to stay up with everyone else.
←

You are kidding yourself. If 10-1 wasn't realistic for this past season, then it's not going to be realistic for next season. That is why it is unrealistic.

We have 3 mid-majors and one blood game. The last time we played 2 of the 3 mid-majors (this past season), they blew us off the field. WOW. What in the world makes you think it will be different?

You complain about 4 straight bowl games not being good enough in seasons past. Then, you use the bowl games as a flimsy prop to hold up your argument that they are the reason why we should go 10-1 next year? It doesn't hold up in my book.

I want to see vast improvement, but I'm not going to stamp a 10-1 or bust on Dickey's head. Because Mack Brown, Bill Parcells, Pete Carroll, Charlie Weis combined could not make this team 10-1 next year.

Green92 · December 7, 2005

This is my point, You are being unrealistic. You want to go from 2-9 to 10-1 in one year?! I don't care what coach is here, It's not happening!!
At this point, for next year? Yea, being able to school the sunbelt is all I want for this program. That and a win over SMU. I don't know if you noticed, but we lost the Sunbelt this year. What good is winning an out of conference game if we cant regularly beat up on the lowest of the low?
It seems like we didn't have a problem being 9-3 until we ended 2-9. It's no wonder sometimes why we are referred to as the idiot board
I hate to burst your bubble, but if all you want is to be 10-1 next season you are going to be sadly dissappointed. Then you will call for Dickey's head, and by god if he goes 9-2 next season just to spite you (I hope he does), I will point back to this thread and tell you that it's still not good enough for you after a 2-9 year.
Give me a break.
←

I'm not calling for DD's head. Other than UT, there is not a team on the schedule next year that we can't play with. Of course we are not going 10-1, but I think to shoot for less is unacceptable. Anyway, thanks for explaining to me how things work. I couldn't have figured it out without your enlightenment. Please, DD, go 9-2 just to spite me. Please....

Edited December 7, 2005 by Green92

ipEAGLE · December 7, 2005

I'm fine with DD except acouple things:

His teams get penalized way too much.

His negative comments on NATIONAL radio shows.

Bad mouthing of the fans.

Terrible out of conference record.

-----

It seems he doesn't want to be at NT.

Edited December 7, 2005 by ipEAGLE

H-towngreen · December 7, 2005

Hell we should aim for 11-0. Truthfully though no way in hell we even stay close to UT. So that leaves us at 10-1. Yes we should aim for it. Is it likely? It's possible. I believe that we only need a few things and this team can do it.

1) Run stoppers. We missed having 2 big bodies in the middle, yet alone 1 body. Hopefully Thomas will be ok. We need another youngster to step up or JUCO.

2) QB- I say mid-term juco. If not then who knows. Meager, Phillips, Byerly???. I have like Meager from the start but I would now like to see Phillips. Meager just doesn't seem to have to arm strength to throw downfield.

3) JT- lose about 10 lbs. and so you can stay healthy, adding weight isn't always a good thing.

4) CB- Everyone says we have a bunch of good ones redshirting. But they are young. Start one of them and bring in another mid-term juco.

MeanMag · December 7, 2005

I'm not calling for DD's head. Other than UT, there is not a team on the schedule next year that we can't play with. Of course we are not going 10-1, but I think to shoot for less is unacceptable. Anyway, thanks for explaining to me how things work. I couldn't have figured it out without your enlightenment. Please, DD, go 9-2 just to spite me. Please....
←

Sorry, I thought that was what you meant by saying that "If Dickey doesn't go 10-1 then the ship is not righted."

Must have misinterpreted that. My apologies.

I agree we should always shoot for 11-0, otherwise what business do we have being in D1-A? But to expect "the ship to be righted" in less than 1 year and have the kind of turn around of a 10-1 season, I think, is not explaining to you how things work. It's me disagreeing with the point of 10-1 being the mark we should judge Dickey by.

Anytime anyone wants me to explain how things work, just ask. I'm here to help.

Edited December 7, 2005 by MeanMag

ipEAGLE · December 7, 2005

It can happen... ask UCF. 0-11 last year to 8-4 this year.

Also UCF has had football for less than 5 years if I'm not mistaken.

Edited December 7, 2005 by ipEAGLE

untbowler · December 7, 2005

You are kidding yourself. If 10-1 wasn't realistic for this past season, then it's not going to be realistic for next season. That is why it is unrealistic.
We have 3 mid-majors and one blood game. The last time we played 2 of the 3 mid-majors (this past season), they blew us off the field. WOW. What in the world makes you think it will be different?
You complain about 4 straight bowl games not being good enough in seasons past. Then, you use the bowl games as a flimsy prop to hold up your argument that they are the reason why we should go 10-1 next year? It doesn't hold up in my book.
I want to see vast improvement, but I'm not going to stamp a 10-1 or bust on Dickey's head. Because Mack Brown, Bill Parcells, Pete Carroll, Charlie Weis combined could not make this team 10-1 next year.
←

Thats the whole point if DD is as great as most want to make him out to be there is no excuse as to why we should not beat 90% of the Non-BCS schools, I do not include Tulsa, SMU, or La. Tech among the 10% so we should be beating them not getting our a$$es handed to us by 40pts.

Expect more and if that is the thinking then 10-1 should be what we strive for and not accept 7-4 winning the Belt and no OOC games, but like some of the "Haters" we do not know what we are doing.

Edited December 7, 2005 by untbowler

DallasGreen · December 7, 2005

It can happen... ask UCF. 0-11 last year to 8-4 this year.
Also UCF has had football for less than 5 years if I'm not mistaken.
←

Length of time you have a program counts a lot less than having a QUALITY program. We were BLOWN OUT royally by LA Tech & Tulsa this year. Only Baylor (see our 2003 vs. 2004 games with them) can make such a turnaround. If you did not catch it SMU finished very strong and has almost everyone coming back-- I want to win this game sooooooo badly, but I fear players, coaches, AD will treat it as just another ho hum OOC game, and we will witness the most embarrassing day ever for UNT!!! I won't even mention UT as it should set numerous NCAA records not to mention a hefty body count. How can we need money so much to allow this game to stay on the schedule?

Michael Scott · December 7, 2005

I won't even mention UT as it should set numerous NCAA records not to mention a hefty body count. How can we need money so much to allow this game to stay on the schedule?
←

Because our donor numbers are in the hundreds

meanrob · December 7, 2005

It can happen... ask UCF. 0-11 last year to 8-4 this year.
Also UCF has had football for less than 5 years if I'm not mistaken.
←

UCF has been I-A for about 10 years now.

MeanMag · December 7, 2005

Thats the whole point if DD is as great as most want to make him out to be there is no excuse as to why we should not beat 90% of the Non-BCS schools, I do not include Tulsa, SMU, or La. Tech among the 10% so we should be beating them not getting our a$$es handed to us by 40pts.
Expect more and if that is the thinking then 10-1 should be what we strive for and not accept 7-4 winning the Belt and no OOC games, but like some of the "Haters" we do not know what we are doing.
←

I agree we should expect more than 7-4. No doubt about it. I just don't see how the same team I saw this year go 2-9, can accomplish a 10-1 record next year when I look at margins of loss.

I want them to go 11-0. I hate being clumped in with the ideology of "you don't strive or want to be the best because you are happy with winning the sunbelt." I'm happy with just winning the sunbelt next year because this program took such a BIG step back this year. However when we do start winning the SB again, I expect to then get victories over other programs.

You may not consider Tulsa, SMU, La Tech among the top 10% OOC, but I don't consider us there either. In fact, based on the past season, I'd put us in the bottom 10% of non bcs teams. That being the case, Tulsa, SMU, and La Tech are all higher than us.

Here's an excuse for us not beating 90% of Non-BCS teams: We're young

NT80 · December 7, 2005

It can happen... ask UCF. 0-11 last year to 8-4 this year.
Also UCF has had football for less than 5 years if I'm not mistaken.
←

they also have more **cough**...youth... **cough** than we do.....

Michael Scott · December 7, 2005

You may not consider Tulsa, SMU, La Tech among the top 10% OOC, but I don't consider us there either. In fact, based on the past season, I'd put us in the bottom 10% of non bcs teams. That being the case, Tulsa, SMU, and La Tech are all higher than us.
Here's an excuse for us not beating 90% of Non-BCS teams: We're young
←

My only question is have we ever been above the bottom 10 or, at best, 20% in the past 5 years.

I'm not saying that to be a jerk, but the results against teams like FAU and South Florida keep confirming this.

I'd love to be wrong about this by the way.

untbowler · December 7, 2005

I am not saying we are part of that Top 10% and obviously watching some our coaching/playing UNT does not want to seek that level for some odd reason.

Hopefully this loser type mentality can be lifted until then we just need to keep hoping for a turn around.

MeanMag · December 7, 2005

My only question is have we ever been above the bottom 10 or, at best, 20% in the past 5 years.
I'm not saying that to be a jerk, but the results against teams like FAU and South Florida keep confirming this.
I'd love to be wrong about this by the way.
←

I think in '02-'03 and maybe '03-'04 might have been the peak. South Florida was somewhat dissapointiing, because our defense was stout that year, but the way other games went that year told me that we belonged in the middle to upper ends of the non bcs pack. It wasn't necessarily the wins and losses that makes me think this way about the past but how we looked during those wins and losses. I would put us higher than the bottom 20% of non bcs teams those years. definitely.

Man, I remember when the crowd would get more fired up when the defense came onto the field than the offense, just because they were so fun to watch wrecking an offense and every play something big could happen. Talk about playmakers...