GrandGreen

I really hope that the Belt does not mess up and lose their best asset, the New Orleans Bowl. There is not a better location in college football to play a bowl game. Maybe the key is to allow the NO bowl to have the option of getting the first place team or another that is more suited geographically. I really doubt there are many teams that would prefer to go to another low level bowl rather than to New Orleans.

Sun Belt tennis is almost entirely made up of foreign players. NT was the only team that used predominately American players until the coaching change. That change has allowed NT to move up quickly from being the doormat of the conference. It is obvious that limiting foreign players would hurt the other Belt teams just as much as NT, in fact probably a little more as NT still more USA players than most if not all the Belt. As the rules are now, NT would be stupid not to follow the trend of recruiting mostly foreign players. However, I would be all far a rule that would limit foreign players in all sports. I do believe that having a few international athletics is a good thing, but in some sports specifically long distance running and tennis it has got competely out of control. One of the reasons that WKU and MTSU dominate the all sports competition is that they liberally use foreigners in several sports.

It seems to me if you are writing a blog on a player like the one on Gilmore, you could at least state his current weight, it seems very pertinent in the context of the article. TD recently stated he was 6'6 270. Not that Dodge doesn't frequently overstate size of his players at least compared to what are supposedly accurate measurements used on the roster. If Gilmore is truly over 270 he should be able to be very effective at defensive tackle and may have lost some of the quickness that made him a good defensive end. With the predominance of the spread offensives, most teams are going to quicker defensive lineups. While Akpunka is at the low end of the weight scale, lots of teams now have linebacker sized defensive linemen on the outside. Putting Gilmore at dt follows that trend, and as I've wondered on previous posts, what is the future of all those 300 lb. plus linemen NT recruited last year. Cantly remains apparently the exception to the rule, it seems if he is quick enough to play de, he would be even more suited for dt if he has adequate strenght to play the position. It appears that most of the defensive lettermen returning havn't impressed the coaches enough to figure into the line rotations. That could change but it appears that only Ross and Gilmore really are being considered as possible starters at this point. It looks like Ross and Gilmore at dts with Cantly and Akpunka at de's with the possibilities of jucos Atkisson, Jackson and Weber being in the rotation. I also wouldn't count out freshman Tyler Washington at de.

In reaction to the predominance of spread offenses, defenses have been altered to counter the passing game. This concept of Nelson of preferring quickness to size is nothing new and in fact the norm. Many teams are starting linebacker sized defensive ends to add quickness and improve the pass rush. Akpunka at about 6' 1 220 is at the small end of the scale but not all that unique in present day college football. Moving Cantly to defensive end seems to be going counter to the trend, if he is quick enough to play de; he should be even better at defensive tackle, if he has the strenght to play the position. Gilmore's good play was a lot more evident last year when he played on the end. However, his play at dt might have been just as solid but not as noticable. At 6'5 or 6'6 and 270 lb plus he should have the size to play either position. It will probably come down to which position is most in need of a solid player. I would prefer Gilmore at DE and Cantly at DT but it will depend on the playing ability of the new jucos and the progression of Ross. If Ross, Desoto, Jackson or Atkisson show enough at tackle then Gilmore will probably play at DE. Likewise if Weber is the real deal or another de such as Sykes, O-Hemeng, or Cole progress, than Cantly might be moved back to DT.

Loriane dos Santos Favoretto from Brazil via Laredo CC is apparently a new recruit to the Mean Green tennis program. She is currently listed on the roster on the official athletic site. Based on quick google, She was one of the top junior college players last year and was part of the doubles juco championship team.

The limit is 13 scholarships for men's basketball and 15 for women. The above list does not include the last signee Alzee Williams.

Yes, NT can really afford to subsidize high school games. Being critical is great, but do you really think NT who has to bring in portable generations just to run the lights, can rent out Fouts for $500. I am confident that NT would love to have more high school games but they can't lose thousands of dollars a game to do so.

I think you have a good point. The sad thing about Jamario is that if his career had been in reverse, the leading rusher in the nation his senior year instead of as a freshman; he would have gotten a lot more accolades. I have no doubt he would have been hailed as the best back ever in the Belt and at NT if in his senior year he had rushed for over 180 yards a game even if he had the same career statistics. Finroy was a good hardworking back but he was never close to the magic of Thomas's freshman year. If it was not for Thomas's four carries against UT and an injury in the Baylor game, he would have averaged well over 200 yards a game.

Very interesting article. Diverting from the main theme of the piece, one thing that really struck me is the following quote: "Fulks said there are only three major items that would really affect the budget: salaries (33 percent), grants and aid (17 percent), and facility maintenance (10 percent). But, because tuition is set by the school, most athletic departments can't alter grants-in-aid, and many are unwilling to cut coaching salaries or even agree to a uniform NCAA cap on coaching salaries. Schools with smaller athletic budgets generally spend a higher percentage of their money on salaries than the schools with large budgets." I think coaching salaries are approaching obscene at many of the football powers. Eventually, I think this could lead to a complete restructuring of the college game. If any player group ever takes the current system to court to obtain pay for college players, I think it is going to be very difficult for the NCAA to defend situations were the players get a college education versus college head coaches making $4m a year. Does it seem equitable as stated above that coaches and staff salaries are paid almost twice the value of the entire teams' scholarships? I may be wrong but aren't the players the ones who are taking the risk and account for most of the success of the team. Ultimately, this could lead to the division of college football into the teams that can afford to pay players and those that cannot above a scholarship. Coaches mega-salaries are defended in this article by noting that at larger schools, salaries make a smaller percentage of the budget than at the have-nots. Typical logic to support the status quo and insure that competition remains as unfair as possible between the top and bottom tiers.

It is all opinion, but in my view, not only did Booger play 4 years to Ware's one; but he was a more dominating player than Ware was in at least three of his four years. I don't think everyone realize how great a defensive lineman has to be named a conference player of the year not once but twice. This honor is all most exclusively given to quarterback and running backs. There is no doubt Ware is a great pro player and had a great year in the Belt, but Kennedy was a better college player. Again, I think the staff that supposedly voted on this team, either forgot about Kennedy or has very questionable judgment. Picking Johnson above a two time player of the year that anchored a team that won the championship every year he played makes no sense.

Yes, they corrected part of their obvious error. I believe Kennedy should definitely be defensive player of the decade, I guess they can't amend that. Sorry, but a player being all conference for three years and defensive player of the year once does not compare with Kennedy's four time all conference and twice POY year accolades. I think it is obvious they completely overlooked the best defensive player the league has ever had. Really sorry research on their part.

With the talent he is bringing in, it may not make any difference. I think all of you that expect Thomas to fall flat on his face, maybe in for a nasty surprise.

I won't really believe improvement till I've seen it. I way overestimated TD and his teams the first two years. However, there are many reasons for hope. It starts with Dodge, he is definitely on the hot seat. I have never seen a coach so ill prepared to be a FB division coach, but he must get a lot better to remain. Hopefully, with his job definitely on the line he can really step it up. Some of the structural things he has done by adding more experience to the staff can't do anything but help. The running game as noted should be much improved with a bevy of good to very good running backs and an offensive line returning 8 players who have started at least one year. Add to that line, Jenkins who was a four star rated lineman and Bean who obvious must be good are they wouldn't have added him to this mix of offensive linemen and the competition should be great. The concern on the offensive side is oddly the passing game with no experienced receivers and a rookie QB. I think the fate of this team is going to rest with how good Riley really is. If you have to depend on a freshman QB, Riley's potential is as good as any NT has had. On the defensive side, the line is the major concern with only Gilmore a proven first line player. With Nelson as the new defensive line coach, who preaches speed vs size; I just wonder how NT's bunch of 300 lb recruits are going to do. The facts are the coaching staff is obviously concerned with the ability of the returning lettermen and the newcomers are unproven. Cantly, Franklin, and Akpunka may turn into players, but to believe they are going to turn the defensive line around is IMO premature. Atkinson, Jackson, Weber, and White all bring size to the line but are they quick enough to play in Nelson's defense. I would not be surprised to see smaller players like Stewart, Brown, and Washington getting more time. I believe the rest of the defense is going to be much better. Linebacker is weak in numbers, but with all three starters returning plus converted safety Hill, veteran Warren and maybe something special Phillips; the linebacker squad should be one of the best in the Belt. The defensive secondary is very deep and hopefully good. The corner back position were NT was definitely abused last year should be very strong with a three year starter returning in Bush who may not even be in the starting lineup. With Bush, Adams, Hill, Smith and Chatman; NT should have a great rotation. Safety is not as strong but returning Shorter and Williams plus Cook who at 6'2 210 grew into a safety should be at least adequate. The schedule this year is the easiest on paper for NT since returning from 1aa. TD has definitely improved the talent level of both the coaching staff and the players. Again, Riley is the key if he can be at least as good as Vizza in his first year and Dodge can coach well, this team could really surprise.

www.meangreensports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=1800&ATCLID=3756795 Talley wins 200m in Junior championships.

The logic I don't understand is in this quote: "Using simple logic you cannot sign 25 per year every year. In 2008 33 teams all signed over the 25 limit. 2009 was just as bad'." Sure you can sign 25 a year because players leave programs. You can sign a maximum of 25 in any year as long as it does not cause the total number of scholarships to go over the squad limit of 85. I guess I did not express myself well, so I will try again. Most teams over sign a few players based on their projections of having scholarships opening up. I don't think many have a problem with that, however many do have a problem with teams that sign a large number of players with borderline academic skills hoping that a percentage of those athletes will ultimately qualify. The NCAA clearing house requirements for college admissions are ridiculously low, having a third to half of a recruiting class having problems with those standards IMO indicates issues with either a college's academics and/or priorities. Sure there are athletes that have low test scores and go on to graduate and be successes, but the odds of this occurring are not encouraging. The most likely result, is that these students fail or are placed into degree plans to keep them qualified that fail to provide them with any significant college level marketable skills. I don't have to have heartburn to disagree with a point of view. I am not sure what NT's graduation rates have to do with the issues being discussed; but if you want to elaborate on the topic, go ahead.

I fail to see all of your logic. The fact is that players leave every program for a variety of reasons; academics, not enough playing time, ships not renewed, etc. Therefore there are more than the approximately 20 ships a year that would be available with a max limit of 85 and an average number of redshirts that would occur if no one left the program. As you have stated, schools can be guilty of over signing that have smaller classes than 25 when there are less ships available than players inked. Conversely, many of the schools you listed did not over sign because of transfers mostly jucos who officially signed in an earlier period but are including in the current class. The 85 maximum squad size limitation is hard to monitor during recruiting periods because no one even the coaches know exactly what current players are going to return. Staffs do know the size of their current squad and have a good idea of the number of players that will not return the next year for whatever reason. Therefore, most schools recruit above the 85 max because they know there will be more ships available before the new recruits report. Likewise some teams take more players than the 25 allowed in one class because they assume some will not qualify. You are correct, most universities over sign based on their projections of the number of qualifying recruits and the number of current players returning. However, the norm is to do this for a few players and not every year. Teams like Troy who have made this the basis of their recruiting strategy, I think are abusing the system. Troy has averaged 32 signings a season over the last four years, which can be interpreted as at least a third of their classes never pass the NCAA minimal academic requirements. Obviously, they can't identify that third or they would not have offered them in the first place. Therefore there are likely many more than that third that were recruited despite being marginal academic performers. These recruiting practices have worked out very well for Troy on the field, but have drawn a lot of criticism. The question I have is given the number of academic borderline players that end up at Troy is how do they keep them academically qualified. NT, for example does not seem to have the same success with keeping athletes with borderline academic skills in school.

I would be a little careful about all this criticism of FIU. All university programs are feeling the pinch which gets worse as you go down the athletic food chain. All those commenting that FIU doesn't belong in the FB Division, I assume are confident that UNT won't have much worse budget problems when trying to fund a new stadium in this economy.

Being able to recruit better than DD in his last few seasons is not going to thrill anyone. I fail to see what your comparison of players means. You have compared players that played little or never touched the field recruited by DD with players who have played or some that I guess you think have good potential recruited by TD. I guess you could make the case for DD recruiting by comparing Nwigwe, Bush, Drake, Robertson and Santiago with players recruited by TD that have already left the program. The facts are that every outside source rated last year's class at the bottom of the Texas schools and close to the bottom of the Belt. Some of the same people that are disregarding those ratings thought they were right on two years ago when NT was hailed as having one of the best classes in recent history. I think TD and staff did as well as they could last year considering NT's record, off the field issues, and TD's failure to prove he is a legitimate FB division head coach. I do hope and think they may have landed a few of the proverbial sleepers, that are always proclaimed by staffs that don't sign many players that are identified as front line prospects, who can play. I do think that TD has raised the talent level over were DD left the program, but it certainly is not were it was in DD's Belt winning years. I just wish DD had worked half as hard at recruiting and overall public relations that Dodge has, NT would be in much better shape and Dickey might have gotten that job away from NT, he so coveted. Dodge is doing a lot of things right with his minicamps and efforts to build better relationships with the high schools, but in the final analysis; only winning is going to substanually improve recruiting.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...9.6feaadb0.html More on Williams and Trilli's return. Williams looks like a good recruit. I like he has Dallas background and extra year of prep school basketball to develop. Also can play backup point behind Johnson and White if needed.

UTSA will have a rough go. They do have some great advantages such as a mega-city location with little local sports competition. They also got a great commitment from their student body for an athletic fee that maxes out at $480 a year. A disadvantage and advantage is, it is a new program. As such there will be a lot of excitement and support at the beginning but also there is no tradition and as a start up it could get very difficult to jump into the FB division. I assume that the Southland will admit UTSA as a football player member as they are already be in that conference. It will be very difficult for any program such as Texas State at San Marcos or UTSA to get into the FB division. Remember the key component is to be able to get a FB division schedule and without a conference sponsor this could be very difficult. Although it seems that the majority on this board seem to think it would be just dandy to add more FB programs in Texas, I doubt that the other FB division universities' administrations see it that way. Despite our Texas State posters' accretion there are very few players that will sign with a lower division school if given other choices. I really doubt any of CUSA Texas members want another team in Texas to recruit against. The facts are that most of the top one hundred and fifty to two hundred sought after Texas recruits are grabbed by name conference teams. The balance of the 350 average Texas recruiting class are mostly signed by the lower level conferences. It is out of this pool that TCU, SMU, Rice, UH, UTEP and NT get the majority of their class. I doubt that the six Texas lower tier FB universities want to further dilute this recruiting pool by adding two more competitors. The one thing that adding these two schools will do, is put Texas firmly in front of the race for the state with the most high school football recruits as another 40 that are going to lower divisions now will get an opportunity to play FB Division football.

La Tech requirements are 2.5 gpa or top 25% or ACT 23 or SAT 1050 for freshmen. UNT's requirements are guaranteed admission under state guidelines for top 10% of class; next 15%, 950 SAT or 20 ACT; second quarter of class, 1050 SAT or 23 ACT and third quarter requires 1180 SAT and 26 ACT. Nether are partically challenging but obviously NT is more restrictive. Average national scores for SAT in 2008 was 1017 and for ACT between 20 and 21. But both requirements are down right stellar when compared to a couple of our conference mates. Troy requires test scores if gpa is over 2.5, 16 ACT or 780 SAT. If gpa is lower than 2.5 requires ACT 19 or 910 SAT. WKU requires a 2.5 gpa or 20 ACT or 930 SAT, but if you can't pass those requirements; they have Bowling Green Community College that is actually a part of WKU that has an open enrollment policy. For comparison UTSA requirements are: top 25%, guaranteed admission; 2nd Quarter, 920 SAT or 19 ACT; Third Quarter, 970 SAT or 20 ACT; Fourth Quarter, 1020 SAT or 21 ACT. Texas State has no stated admission standards only require transcripts and class rankings. UTA is close to NTs with top 10% graranteed admission; Second Quarter, 1050 SAT or 22 ACT; Third Quarter, 1150 SAT or 25 ACT. The two schools that I think NT should keep pace with are the University of Houston and Texas Tech. NT compares with UH which has no minimum test scores for top 20% and others in top 50% 1000 SAT or 21 ACT. But Texas Tech has recently upped their stated requirements and NT is falling way behind. Tech under state mandate has no minimum for top 10%. Rest of the top quarter require SAT 1140 or ACT 25, second quarter SAT 28 or ACT 1230, lower half SAT 1270 or 29 ACT.

Not all but they have more than their share. I have not looked at their message board much since NT and La Tech were up for a CUSA bid till now, believe it or not they seem a little more reasonable than they were. However, what really is ridiculous as their continued reference to NT as an inferior academic school. What are they smoking, there is not one factor I can come up with that they would excel. As far as facilities, unless they have made vast improvements over the last two years; they are behind almost any fb division college I've seen. I expect they have improved their football stadium since NT played there, but at that time I don't think it was even a step up from Fouts. Yes, the sight lines were better than Fouts but the place looked like it was very poorly maintained and whole sections of the stadium were roped off and their restrooms couldn't compare.

Just curious, how did a game between two of the best Mountain West teams change your mind about NT and the WAC.

Well Danny what "far better schools" are just chomping at the bit to get into CUSA? There are not even a lot of "far better schools" already in CUSA. If you are talking only about the football program, yes; NT is on hard times but that doesn't mean that can't be relatively quickly turned around. If you really think NT cannot compete as an institution with the rest of the Belt or the various 1-aa schools that want to move up, I wonder what your rationale is. I seldom am accused of wearing green goggles but I think you are blinded by something other than the basic facts. NT is a large University in a great location with academics and potential significantly better than most of the Belt and most of the programs that want to move up to the FB classification.

Remember NT has 8 offensive lineman who have started for at least one year. Santiago, Drake, and Bailey have started most of two years; Johnson, Menard, Freely, Hollovay and Gill have started most of one year.