Greendylan

I don't know if this is a fair statement or not, but there has certainly been a palpable difference ever since things fell through between Littrell and KSU.

Benford'd?

Out of the many embarrassments of North Texas athletics over the years, this one is up there. While basketball has brought all sorts of pride and legitimacy to the university over the past few years, football is on a steep downward trajectory. Something is truly wrong, and it's time to show that this level of failure will no longer be tolerated by this athletic department.

The O-line looks confused, outsmarted, undisciplined, and not physically prepared to face a decent rush. But, even that isn't the worst part. The receivers have zero ability to get separation from the coverage, whether through play-calling, talent, preparation or whatever, and this has been the case in every game--including when they were at full strength against Northwestern State.

This team feels unprepared on almost every level and doesn't really look like they even want to be out there. I know it's a sports cliché, but there is that moment when it becomes clear that a coach has lost his team, and if this isn't it, I would hate to see what is. I struggle to see the benefit in letting this thing play out for the rest of the season.

The announcers are trying to be respectful and professional, but you can tell that they are embarrassed for North Texas.

This team looks like it has given up.

Not to be overly dramatic, but by the end of this game both the Ruder era and Littrell's career may be in serious jeopardy. It's hard to overstate the damage that this offense is doing to his reputation.

I believe it's called the Benford Principle.

I don't think Littrell is on the hot seat yet--probably not even close, if I'm being honest.

"UNT Missed Out on a Big Chance" is basically the summary of Mean Green football for the past century.

You might be right, but would it not at least be arguable? And, while we are at it, what about comparing the new Big XII to the ACC?

To me the only surprise on that list is UCF instead of Memphis.

For all of you who are declaring that we need to PICK A DAMN QB1 AND STICK WITH HIM . . . you are probably right (and I agree with you). BUT, just hypothetically, let's say QB X starts against Northwestern State and does fine. Then he starts against SMU and looks completely lost, immediately turns over the ball a few times, and pretty much accomplishes nothing positive in the first half. Who feels confident in getting your rear on the record (sorry, Brett) with stating that you will not demand that QB Y play the second half and/or start the UAB game? I'll admit that I can make no such promise...

Well, for what it's worth, his other picks are pretty vanilla. It's not like he's just making ridiculous upset predictions all over the place.

This year I'm actually more concerned about the mental fortitude of the team rather than any type of talent deficiency. As everyone knows, looming across the first month and a half of the season is the very plausible scenario that we start the season 1-6. The high water mark is probably 3-4, but that is highly unlikely. If you are predicting anything better than that for the first seven games, then you, my friend, have been imbibing more green kool-aid than the law allows. The question then in my mind is if the coaches will lose the team when they are sitting at 1-6 or 2-5. I'll say they'll keep everyone focused and will rattle off a few wins. So, I'll officially predict that we will go into the UTSA game with a chance at bowl eligibility but ultimately end up 5-7. Given the past couple seasons, I would be OK with this, as it would mean that every single game up until the end was meaningful.

I haven't read DCTF in a while, but if I'm remembering correctly from previous years, these "Power" polls are relative to each team's conference. In other words, they aren't necessarily suggesting that higher ranked teams would be favored against lower ranked teams, but are just saying that those teams will be more dominant in their own conferences than the teams below them. Regardless, they are clearly indicating that they expect UTSA to be light years ahead of us this year--and they are probably right...

Yes, it says on his Texas A&M CC bio page that he started all 6 games and then was injured. However, I don't know what type of injury it was or if he has entirely recovered.

In his younger and more vulnerable years, he would have committed to Purdue, but after spending some time on Long Island, it has changed his whole attitude about the glamour of the P5.

In general I agree with this sentiment, but let's consider a few things. First, Butler is no longer a midmajor, as they now play in the Big East. Also, Gonzaga is just about the most anomalous example of a program from a midmajor conference as one could find. VCU is a more apt comparison, but even then, if you look at what their program has done in relation to ours over the course of the past 40 years, it's not even close. We finally broke through and made it to the Round of 32, which is awesome, but VCU has done it 9 times. And, regardless, I don't think there's any chance in hell that we could be competitive with Mike Rhoades's $1.7 million salary, which would mean tripling McCasland's pay. I think a realistic starting point would be to bring him up to the top of CUSA (he's already close) HC salaries and also try to get him to the median point of pay in conferences like the Mountain West and AAC.

Gonzaga may not be a Cinderella anymore, at least in the traditional sense, but this is still on some level the West Coast Conference vs. a power five conference. Go Bulldogs!

Really, really happy to see this!

This would be my guess.

The odds of keeping McCasland seem low, to be perfectly honest. This is just a hunch, but since we're not hearing anything about current players announcing that they will return or outside players committing to transfer in (while a LOT of movement is happening around the country), then I suspect that the general assumption is that he won't be back. But, I think we have an excellent candidate already on staff to take over in the event that he leaves. Or, if we want to look externally, I think our budget presents some intriguing possibilities. So, I wouldn't exactly say that I'm worried--but a little sad, sure, since I really like McCasland.

I suppose it's plausible that Tech could hire from within, but here's my thought: It has got to sting for them to lose a head coach to a conference mate, and an internal hire might not make a big enough splash to appease their wounded alums.