2012 still had mainly Dodge's personnel footprint

[MeanGreenHoops]

The facts are that a new coaching staff often produces some excitement and better recruiting. We saw this from Dodge and Dickey to some extent, that didn't happen with McCarney. Dodge quickly lost that edge because he didn't produce, Dickey actually grew the program till he got to be too good for "the worst coaching job" in America.

I find the argument that McCarney is stockpiling a lot a players by reshirting, baffling. There is no reason in the world other than injuries and the players can't significant help the program to redshirt a player currently at NT. Also the increased emphasis in jucos also supports the thesis that there are not a lot of players waiting in the wings to take the field.

Nailed it.

[untjim1995]

I will say this, Darrell Dickey, Kenny Evans etc would have killed to be in the position we are now, facility wise, conference wise and salary wise etc.. but that was close to 10 years ago... the arms race continues.

And I contend that the university, RV, and the fans would have killed to have Dickey act like a guy who wanted to be here and didn't close his mind to the thought of this place just being a toilet EVERYDAY. If he would have seen a bigger picture, maybe he would still be here.

[ragpicker]

A Highland Park High School assistant football coach told me the other day that in thirty two years of coaching in the Dallas area this the first year a North Texas football coach has ever visited him about a football player and possible recruit. He seemed both genuinely surprised and quite pleased.

I don't know if this means anything, but is so frustrating to see so few UNT commitments on the list of top one hundred recruits in the Dallas - Fort Worth area year after year.

[UNT90]

You know Harry, I have been hearing the same "wait till xxxx for recruits to mature" forever at NT. People poo poo the rating services and praise NT recruits. This is a natural reaction, but frankly NT success and their recruiting ratings track. All those low rated recruiting classes have produced the same kind of teams.

I am not a big fan of the ratings services but I do believe they tend to be right because if you distill their ratings they are basically predicated on what teams are recruiting players. We may all like to think that NT coaches are smarter than others and can get rich on under recruited players, but that is a tough way to grow a program.

The facts are that a new coaching staff often produces some excitement and better recruiting. We saw this from Dodge and Dickey to some extent, that didn't happen with McCarney. Dodge quickly lost that edge because he didn't produce, Dickey actually grew the program till he got to be too good for "the worst coaching job" in America.

I find the argument that McCarney is stockpiling a lot a players by reshirting, baffling. There is no reason in the world other than injuries and the players can't significant help the program to redshirt a player currently at NT. Also the increased emphasis in jucos also supports the thesis that there are not a lot of players waiting in the wings to take the field.

McCarney will get his chance in 2013 and I think it looks promising. My point is that significant progress needs to happen next year. Many think that occurred last year, I don't. Progress to me is not being better than Dodge or Dickey, it is moving the team upward when compared with NT's peers.

So, we basically agree on everything.

Why were we arguing? Internet hugs.

[oldguystudent]

Wouldn't it be:

Dodge players coached by Mac > Dickey players coached by Dodge?

I'm thinking Dodge players coached by Mac > The NFL all-century team coached by Dodge.

Hence my low expectations and cares since I've only experienced two coaching staffs.

Edited January 28, 2013 by oldguystudent

[Green P1]

I said a long long time ago that I didn't believe Mac would be able to recruit well enough to turn this thing around. I've seen nothing to change my mind. We're in CUSA and we're still recruiting to the bottom rung of the SunBelt. GrandGreen won the thread when he remarked that our success level tracks right on with our recruiting ratings.

[JesseMartin]

So the conclusion I've come to is:

Dodge players coached by Mac > Dodge players coached by Dodge

Which shouldn't be a surprise given Dodge's experience vs Mac's.

Wouldn't it be:

Dodge players coached by Mac > Dickey players coached by Dodge?

I was going to point out this whole "coaching other coaches' recruits round robin" as well. And to the discussion regarding Mac's recruits, I'd have to side with those who agree that redshirting as many as possible to grow a program is smart. If they told Mac that he had 1-2 years to have a winning record, we would have seen those guys on the field already. But they chose a guy from big-conference programs to give us big-conference coaching and attitude.

We may not go 12-0 at any point under Mac (though that would be a turnaround both he and I would probably like to see in our lifetimes), but I think what he is doing - if in fact we are reading it correctly - will alter the attitude, discipline, and atmosphere of our football program in the long run. Dodge, as much as I like him and as exciting as the games were, just seems like he wasn't as ready for the transition as we had hoped, and he set us back a few years when we were cheering for an expectation that he would do the opposite. Dan is cautious and calculating, and I dig that. We go up a level in conference competition this year (well, almost half the conference is comprised of old conference mates, so maybe half a level).

So with that new variable factored in, I don't think anything under 6-6 means calling for his job. If we go 3-9 or less, yeah. But move up a level and be just under .500? Still not bad, though I expect and hope for better. We can't really be too positive or negative or presume too much until at least part of the season has been played, but I'm optimistic about how he coached "up" Dodge's players, when even Dodge seemed to coach them "down". We will start to see some serious action from Mac's guys this year, and I'm cautiously optimistic about how well that will likely pan out based on those other factors.

[greenminer]

We don't want too many "system" players.

I always thought that "system" is a label for a player that is being coached to play in an unorthodox scheme.

I thought our offensive/defensive systems were pretty traditional and, as such, consider relying too much on "system players" means something ain't right.

[JesseMartin]

We don't want too many "system" players.

I always thought that "system" is a label for a player that is being coached to play in an unorthodox scheme.

I thought our offensive/defensive systems were pretty traditional and, as such, consider relying too much on "system players" means something ain't right.

I don't believe any of us were referring to a "system" in that sense. Rather, it's primarily the multi-tiered aspect of coaching that also involves recruitment.

If you want to think of it as a synthesis of variables, let's say K=Dickey, G=Dodge and M=Mac. We'll keep wins per year as W and put the record in terms of the closest simple fraction possible to best explain the synthesis for people less nerdy than me. As Mac has not had the number of years necessary to have his recruits as upperclassmen players yet, we will keep it the analysis to the years they were coaching primarily other coaches' players, with Dickey and Dodge at 3 years overall and Mac at 2 years, simplifying to only include UNT coaching rather than a far greater multivariate analysis that would involve other schools, positions, and levels of coaching.

As 3KW=1/4, and

As 3GW=1/7, and

As 2MW=1/3, then

2MW=(1.08)6KGW...or, on average, Mac's first two years (coaching a team primarily made up of another coach's recruits and players) have been 8% more effective (as wins) than the combined first-three-year efforts of his two most immediate predecessors (on average).

Now, you may want to go even more specific and do a comparison based solely on the first two years of each of the others against Mac, both separately and individually, since he hasn't hit the "3 years of that guy's luggage" mark yet. If so, here is what you get:

As 2KW=2/9, and

As 2MW=1/3, then

2MW=(1.5)2KW, or, on average, Mac's first two years were about 50% more effective in winning percentages than were Dickey's.

Also, as 2GW=1/8, and

As 2MW=1/3, then

2MW=(2.66)2GW or, on average, Mac's first two years were 166% more effective in winning percentages than were Dodge's.

Additionally, as 2KGW=1/5, and

As 2MW=1/3, then

2MW=(1.4)2KGW or, on average, Mac's first two years were 40% more effective in winning percentages than the average of his two predecessors combined.

Hey, look, math!

Edited January 29, 2013 by JesseMartin

[greenminer]

I don't believe any of us were referring to a "system" in that sense. Rather, it's primarily the multi-tiered aspect of coaching that also involves recruitment.

If you want to think of it as a synthesis of variables, let's say K=Dickey, G=Dodge and M=Mac. We'll keep wins per year as W and put the record in terms of the closest simple fraction possible to best explain the synthesis for people less nerdy than me. As Mac has not had the number of years necessary to have his recruits as upperclassmen players yet, we will keep it the analysis to the years they were coaching primarily other coaches' players, with Dickey and Dodge at 3 years overall and Mac at 2 years, simplifying to only include UNT coaching rather than a far greater multivariate analysis that would involve other schools, positions, and levels of coaching.

As 3KW=1/4, and

As 3GW=1/7, and

As 2MW=1/3, then

2MW=(1.08)6KGW...or, on average, Mac's first two years (coaching a team primarily made up of another coach's recruits and players) have been 8% more effective (as wins) than the combined first-three-year efforts of his two most immediate predecessors (on average).

Now, you may want to go even more specific and do a comparison based solely on the first two years of each of the others against Mac, both separately and individually, since he hasn't hit the "3 years of that guy's luggage" mark yet. If so, here is what you get:

As 2KW=2/9, and

As 2MW=1/3, then

2MW=(1.5)2KW, or, on average, Mac's first two years were about 50% more effective in winning percentages than were Dickey's.

Also, as 2GW=1/8, and

As 2MW=1/3, then

2MW=(2.66)2GW or, on average, Mac's first two years were 166% more effective in winning percentages than were Dodge's.

Additionally, as 2KGW=1/5, and

As 2MW=1/3, then

2MW=(1.4)2KGW or, on average, Mac's first two years were 40% more effective in winning percentages than the average of his two predecessors combined.

Hey, look, math!

As of right now, on willing-to-read scale from 1 - 10, that's somewhere up there between anything from GL2G and a Plumm post that starts with "Hellsbells".

(I like stats, too. Will read after this night of sleep)

<3

[JesseMartin]

As of right now, on willing-to-read scale from 1 - 10, that's somewhere up there between anything from GL2G and a Plumm post that starts with "Hellsbells".

(I like stats, too. Will read after this night of sleep)

<3

Oh, come on...condensed, it's only like 2-3 paragraphs. I just spaced it out to keep the numbers in line and easy to compare. Hell's bells!

[Cougar King]

The excuses for McCarney continues...

[bstnsportsfan3]

The excuses for McCarney continues...

The exxcuses for your douchebagness continues....

[JesseMartin]

The excuses for McCarney continues...

The lack of proper paralleling in your syntax aside...I expected more from you if that was directed at me. As I'm one of the few on here who overlooks your, shall we say, inflammatory and/or propagandized posts for what they are at face value (stirring the pot), I would only be interested in your debunking of my reasoning. Anyone on here who actually knows me (and they know they do, since I have the balls to use my actual name and not my "stripper name", though admittedly "Cougar King" would be a good choice if I did otherwise) would begrudgingly admit that if there's a chance to throw a bit of craziness or anarchy into something just to do precisely what you usually do and keep things rolling with a debate or discussion, I'm all for it. But if your rebuke of a statistical analysis is the equivalent of, "Eh, education, who needs it?," without an attempted jab at spuriousness or lack of correlation, then you are nowhere near my level of counter-social creativity.

On the other hand, if my response was what you hoped to entice through an inanely Dadaist provocation, then I applaud you and hope that you continue your handiwork.

So, maybe I like you. Or not. Who knows?

[untlynchka1]

Ok, first off. Mac has won more games with dodges recruits than dodge ever did. Sad but true. The cupboard was bare. This is only looking at starters. We all know that it's not only 22 players that play the game.

On top of all this the sad thing is that we don't have more offensive playmakers when that was pretty much all dodge recruited early in his tenure. The best or second best, however you want to argue it, offensive player we had from dodge was a walk-on.

Our d improved immediately under Mac, but we had very few offensive weapons. He's done more with what he had than dodge ever did.

[Cerebus]

And I contend that the university, RV, and the fans would have killed to have Dickey act like a guy who wanted to be here and didn't close his mind to the thought of this place just being a toilet EVERYDAY. If he would have seen a bigger picture, maybe he would still be here.

He didn't think that. There was so much behind the scenes stuff that went on that so few know about.

Maybe one of these days someone will write a book about it.

[forevereagle]

The excuses for McCarney continues...

[GrandGreen]

Ok, first off. Mac has won more games with dodges recruits than dodge ever did. Sad but true. The cupboard was bare. This is only looking at starters. We all know that it's not only 22 players that play the game.

On top of all this the sad thing is that we don't have more offensive playmakers when that was pretty much all dodge recruited early in his tenure. The best or second best, however you want to argue it, offensive player we had from dodge was a walk-on.

Our d improved immediately under Mac, but we had very few offensive weapons. He's done more with what he had than dodge ever did.

Why if Dodge was such a disaster as a coach, do people continue to cite a moderately improving program from his level as significant progress.

NT had one descent win last year, ULL. The others were over a bad fc division team, a close win over a program in transition to the FB division, and a bottom of conference FAU. Only with a lot of optimism and knowledge that NT was a young team last year does this look like any kind of advancement.