GrandGreen

I was speculating, as you are, as no one can know the motivation behind that officiating.

Beg to differ, IMO Davis was a better player than Mitchell, Melvin Davis, Kenneth Williams, Terry Bailey or Carl Jones and you can also threw in Weasel Johnson. Comparing apples and oranges to some degree as only Jones played Chris's position. Carl Jones was one of NT's best ever shooting guards but did not have anything close to Davis's all around game. Carl could out shoot Chris, but was not close in defense or rebounding. The others you listed were primarily shooting guards or small forwards (McMillan, Lister, Manning and Taylor), but again done had anything close to Chris Davis's overall game. McMillian could jump out of the gym but was not a particularly good offensive player. Manning was a pure shooter but was not much a factor or the boards or a defensive force. Taylor was as tough as anyone to wear the Green but again was not a big offensive threat. Including Lister in the best every at NT is kind of confusing to me, he was highly ranked as a recruit but never really reached expectations. As far as Weasel Johnson, he was the only significantly piece to those 20 win Blakeley teams actually recruited by Blakeley. He was fun to watch and lighting fast but had way too many turnovers. As a group those Blakeley's teams had more talent than any I have seen at NT. So it is a little difficult to compare Chris who played on some very bad teams and was definitely the "go to guy" with Mitchell, Davis, Williams, Bailey and Jones who had to share the ball. All those you mentioned were among the best ever at NT but I think you are underrating Chris Davis a bit. On my all time list of best players I have seen at NT I would include Lurch Davis, Fred Mitchell, Terry Bailey, and Carl Jones along with Chris. Others I would include would be Crest Whitaker, Joe Hamilton, Willie Davis, Kenneth Lyons, John Shumate, Bobby Iverson and Jessie Ratliff. I guess it speaks volumes that only Chris is a player from the last three decades at NT. I do think White and a couple of others on the current team could potentially join my list.

Having gone to school in that era, I have to disagree to some extent. Student support was better than it is now despite NT having less than half the number of current students. Football games and the parties after were the big social event at the time and average student attendance was about 50% of the students. Can you image were the program would be now with that type of student participation? Non-student support was less than it is now as the Southwest dominated Texas athletics. As far as the schedule than it was not considered to be very good at the time. MVC football was generally rated about were the Belt is now. All those schools with the exception of Arkansas were definitely lower tier with NT and Memphis being the most prominent. An aside, I didn't go to the Arkansas game but from reports I heard; it make the 1988 UT game look superbly officiated in comparison. There was noway that NT would be allowed to beat the pride of the lily white SW southwest conference. I think the late 1960's and the Fry/Blakeney years were pivotable times in NT sports history. In both of these eras, NT had both great, by NT standards, men's basketball and football success. In both cases instead of taking advantage of the momentum and moving athletics forward, NT administration folded and severely cut funding.

A very exciting game, Dodge came through in the end when it counted most. I thought Dodge although probably rusty ran well and had plenty of arm strength. In general, the North offensive line was manhandled most of the game and both North QB's were getting roughed up. Hill and Williams both looked good and thought Hill looked much larger than what NT has listed. I would have liked to seen Brigman on offense, but he played well in the defensive backfield. Fortenberry didn't start but played, couldn't tell much about his performance but he did look big. Got to love all the attention the Dodge's got at the game.

Lets see I was accused of mocking TSU and now of trying to kill athletics at NT. It's been an interesting day. I attempted to explain were my data was derived and the assumptions made. It maybe bogus, in as much as most financial data relating to athletics is vague at best. If you have better data, I will stand corrected. However, I would like to know the origin of the monies that are necessary every year to pay for athletes at NT if not from student fees. I am reasonably sure it is not the title 9 assessment as these funds have been transferred many years before that was enacted, plus the fact by definition those fees are supposed to be restricted to women's sports not football. As far as my source, look at any year's published NT athletic revenue and expense recap. What we are discussing is the origin of the additional funds always transferred in to cover athletic expenses. Obviously, NT does have assess to additional funds with student fees seeming to be the most likely source of those institutional funds used to balance NT's athletic budget. Perhaps you have a break down of the current semester fees of some $970 per student per semester and their uses. By the way, disinformation is a term used normally to convey someone knowingly supplying false information to further some agenda. My rationale for most of my comments was only to be fair to NT students as I believe that they are contributing much more than is being sometimes portrayed. As an aside, I appreciate your efforts in support of upgrading the athletic program at NT.

I guess it's mocking an institution to make reference to the fact that their athletic department has problems funding current operations while planning on much bigger things. Never mind the article cited NT as an example of something that TSU does not want to be. I guess you read between the lines to come up with your synopsis of that post as somehow being against improvement for NT athletics and a student fee increase. Were you can rest your Houdini like perception, I will state my position on funding for the stadium. If NT cannot raise at least a large percentage of the construction cost for a new stadium from outside sources such as sponsorships and donations, than it should not be build. NT, as most know, is operating athletics at a huge deficit in most years. Yes, it is reported as balanced or even a surplus but this is after the transfer of funds usually on the order of $4m from other university sources. This generally ties with the numbers you have provided. My assumption is because this amount of approximately $120 per student is depicted as coming from general institutional funds it does not include the title IX assessment of approximately another $120 a year. Thus students are already averaging about $240 a year to athletics. This IMO is not an unreasonable amount and can be raised, but the question is by how much and what effect an increased dedicated athletic fee would have on the withdrawal of general funds. For example, would raising the athletic fee only reduce the amount transferred from general funds, changing nothing to the bottom line athletic funding. To my mind, there is an equatable limit to the portion of student financing of the athletic function. I am aware of and agree there is a perception value that a successful athletic program benefits all graduates of an university. However, I do think there has to be a reasonable more tangible basis to fees. Medical, Library, Recreation facilities, parking, etc. are based to a large degree on the estimated value to the average student not just the cost of providing those services. When it gets to a point that the cost of athletic support per student is more than outsider ticket prices to the events, then it is very difficult to support those fees. At the current contribution rates, students are getting close to the cost of good season tickets to both football and basketball games. It appears that an upper limit of a annual maximum increase of about $120 per student would be equable, which gets close to the original RV proposal that was voted down. Any amount significantly above this in fees, in my view would be very difficult to pass and defend. Assuming a $60m stadium and outside funding of $30M (donations, naming, etc.) the new fees should just about pay the debt service. The downside is that student fee funding is being used for a stadium and not to directly upgrade other athletic functions.

NT has a lot of issues that have been discussed ad nauseum on this board, and I guess this article about TSU stirs the pot. This is the same Texas State that currently has to ask for donations to equip its teams and has yet to even scratch the surface in college athletics. NT is used as an example of futility because NT is losing; if this article were written five years ago, the references would have been entirely different. NT IMO is at a crossroads in college athletics, it can move forward and compete or remain at the bottom tier of college sports. All these football upgrades planned or in progress at other schools can only provide impetus to NT. I wish all these universities well with their plans, but I don't envy many. FAU and FIU who seem to have everything but fans, TSU who wants to be a BC team but must compete with the Juggernaut of juggernauts next door, Lamar who has once dropped football and now is scrambling to get back to the Southland level.

Have got to disagree with Harry on Kassell being the most deserving of this year's HOF class. Marilyn Marin was the best women's soccer player ever at NT and one of the best in the nation at the time. Chris Davis was not only one of the best basketball players in NT history but displayed the type of character that is very rare in athletics. Kelly was even before my time, so I won't comment on him; but if you were rating the athletes and their contribution to NT, I would favor both Marin and Davis over Kassell. Kassell was a great football player but I can think of many at NT that I would rate at his level or above. Marin dominated her sport at NT, she was selected as the Belt's all time best soccer player in 2006. Davis never played with much of a supporting cast at NT under the inept Trilli and JJ at the beginning of his NT career, but still managed to be arguably the best shooting guard NT has produced. A very strong class this year with recent great players from soccer, football and basketball.

The numbers quoted cover only the $4 something an hour enacted fairly recently for title 9 compliance. NT athletes is largely supported by student fees. Where do those extra millions that mysteriously balance the athletic budget every year come from? It may not be designated for athletes. but current students contribute much more than the numbers above show in activity fees. NT per full-time total student fees currently run just less than a $1000 a semester and I guess much more of those fees end up supporting athletics than any of the above dedicated fees. It would be interesting to know what the average contribution per student to the athletic department is at NT inclusive of what is transferred out of the general fund and those funds designed for athletics only. Then perhaps a meaningful comparison with other schools can be made and a determination of how much more can actually be gained through student fees. The well that everyone wants to drill for additional resources may not be as deep as many believe.

All very deserving, but I will do my annual rant; and complain that the late Walter Chapman continues to be ignored. One of the best football players in NT history and IMO the very best on any of the Fry teams.

Looking at her last year stats coupled with her only offer being from UTA, at first glance she is not all that impressive of a recruit. However, she was the most valuable player in her district as a jr. and was the leader of a 30-6 team that lost in the state quarter finals. Also she is now playing on one of the top club teams in the nation, she should be a good recruit for NT if not something a lot better.

Not sure what is positive about that blog. NT loses one of their most highly rated recruits and it is again demonstrated why mythical recruiting championships mean nothing in the Belt. Getting those signatures look good in recruiting season but, as anyone who has followed MTSU and Troy recruiting should know it doesn't matter much if those higher rated football players but definite academic risks never play. Troy does seem to get a lot of them in school although in many cases a year or more later. I hope the other two Mississippi jucos do make it here, if so NT has probably done better than average when dipping into that particular recruiting pool. As far as the stadium, I guess that was more positive than stating that the project was definitely a no-go, but not much more. After years to me it seems the message is, Hey there still is a chance for new stadium but NT still has not raised any significant funds to actually build. IMO, it sounds like a continuation of NT's policy of not really committing to anything but lets string this along some more. If nothing is built, the AD will be gone anyway; so nothing is lost if he continues to offer a little hope, and who knows NT might land that big donor from somewhere. No matter, there couldn't be a worst time for trying to sell the corporate world on making a big donation.

My predictions for break out years for players with little or no playing time last year. Mongomery at rb, Jenkins in ol, Fentress at wr, Horton at de, Ross at dt, Edwards and Cooks at db. Breaking into the starting lineup next year: Jenkins at ot, Fentress & Roberson at wr, Horton & Daveport at de's, Miller at dt, Pinson and Nwigwe at lb, Edwards, Cooks and Juco Hill at DB. Biggest contribution by a newcomer, Horton.

Couple of comments, even if the freshmen safeties are redshirted, that still leaves Agobottah, Hill, Garden, and Edwards at the safety positions. Also. Dawson played lb for NT prior to last year; he was not switched when NT went to a 3-4. Dawson is a good player, and whether he plays safety or outside linebacker; he should be a contributor this year. Back to the redshirt question, IMO TD loaded up on defensive backs because he saw that as a big need positions particularly after losing underclassmen Roman, Chatman, Green, Nelson, and Ealey. I really don't think it is in his plans to redshirt all 6 recruited high school backs. I doubt more than 2 redshirt. I hope and think TD will coach to win the conference this year, nor being content to just build for the future.

Germaine started at linebacker under DD, I wonder why he was switched to safety. It seems to me that he could help a lot more at linebacker than safety. While there is not a whole lot of returning experience at safety, the position is loaded with new potentially very good players. I don't see the logic in giving Dawson a lot of time at safety in his senior year at the expense of Edwards, Hill, Shorter, Phillips, Williams and others.

Who cares? Minor sports are only marginally supported at the majority of NCAA schools. Do you think having no points in the Directors' Cup is more damaging then a hapless 2-10 football team. Judging by the number of posts, I am among the few who takes any interest in so called non-revenue sports. Are a few points on the national scene all that important? However, if you are really concerned about NT's overall sports program then look at the Belt statistics. NT almost annually finishes third behind WKU and MTSU. This was an off year for NT, not winning a Belt championship in anything which is very disappointing. However, NT still managed a third place finish in the Burba standings. There was great improvement in tennis and swimming and to a lesser degree Softball. The volleyball team had a disappointing year and Golf continues to be mediocre at best. The track teams continue to IMO under perform although they finish near the top. The answer to upgrading rankings in "all sports" competition is simple. You have to take the lesser sports as seriously as basketball and football and demand results and provide at least adequate resources to compete. I think NT has actually upgraded their most needy sports, but still has too many coaches who tend to coast and threat their jobs as part time. Yes, some are paid like they are part time jobs and that should change. NT has an enormous advantage in the sports that have very limited ships and allow partial ships such as swimming, track, soccer, and softball. There are a great number of athletes in this area who it is advantageous to go to a state supported local university to reduce costs when only receiving partial scholarships.

Although a win would be great, NT does not schedule these games because they expect to win, they schedule them to balance the budget At this time NT cannot afford to not play one or probably two guarantee games; an 1=AA game would only replace a home and home schedule with a school such as Rice, Tulsa, etc. Schools play 1=AA teams because they are relatively cheap home games with no return game necessary. "Big time" programs can play 1-AA because most of their oc games are at home and tickets sales are not a problem. NT with a max of 2 oc home games greatly downgrades its home schedule and gains nothing IMO from a win.

Please consider how relatively little NT makes on it's home games, that maybe a glue why NT does not schedule more home games. Given NT has to have "guarantee" games to come close to balancing the budget and have a home schedule that can sell a few tickets, it is easy to understand why NT doesn't rush to schedule 1-AA teams. Would you want to replace Navy last year or Tulsa this year with a 1-AA game?

Long winded commentary on US News and World Report University Ratings Most academic officials condemn the US News and World Report rankings of universities as being bias and overall not very useful. But despite almost universal condemnation, almost all schools still submit data because they are fearful of low rankings handed out to non-cooperating schools. Many question the methodology as well as the usefulness of the data. There have also been many questions relating to the accuracy of un-audited data submitted by the universities. Do you know that the biggest factor in the ratings is completely subjective? 25% of the evaluation is the peer assessment. Were educators at competing universities evaluate other universities with generally little or no first-hand knowledge of the particular institution. Previous poorly rated schools are obviously at a big disadvantage in this criterion. The rating factors are: Peer Assessment 25%, Retention 20%, Faculty Resources 20%, Student Selectivity 15%, Alumni Giving 5%, Graduation Rate 5%, and Financial Resources 10%. All the above criteria are ancillary to the real objective of University performance, how well does the school educate its students. It is impossible to quantify how well a college actually educates. It seems to me that high retention of students and high graduation rates are factors that could be just as easily be argued as signs that a college is not challenging. Student selectivity has nothing to do with the merits of the education received. Faculty resources, which include salaries, class size and degrees; Alumni giving; and financial resources are all tied to how much is spend on the education of students. As those familiar with public high schools can attest, that spending more seldom equals to corresponding effectiveness. It will be very difficult for NT to rise in this type of evaluation system. The historical perception from those not affiliated with the school is that NT is an adequate institution but hardly an outstanding one. This peer review accounts for one fourth of the rating. The retention factor is also difficult for big city public universities that have large numbers of students already in careers that interfere with continuing education because of changing job responsibilities and relocations. It is going to take decades for NT to get its financial resources up to par with a current very small endowment and a state that continues to reduce funding. The good news is despite its historically understated quality, rising tuition, poor financial situation, and all the gloomy other things that have been expressed: NT continues to grow despite higher entrance requirements. The word is getting out.

TCU got a whole 8 first downs in the Fort Worth game, but yet the froggy fans claimed pure dominance over the hapless Green. A game NT should have won but DD with new QB Smith in the game would not pass after he badly missed a couple of open receivers. This is the game were the famous "pass the ball" chant was initiated.

Being this poll identifies the voters, I am not sure a bunch of obviously NT voters is going to make much of an impression. It denotes fan interest but also can make other conference responders look kind of desperate. A move to CUSA would be good for NT because of geography and better known rivals, but I don't think it is a big leap in competition. A bunch of responses to this poll only feeds CUSA egos who think or hope that their conference is far superior.

Interesting that Dufus doesn't want to play ULM because it is beneath LaTech but wants to schedule an 1-AA every year. I would have loved to hear the conversation between Dooley and his boss over this little hiccup.