Yellow Snow

Mac is a very polarizing figure for us. You should have seen the message boards when he was let go. It was entertaining and scary at the same time. Lots of mental patients evidently have access to computers. Anyway, the universal complaint if you look at them, is his conservative "play calling" whatever that means. Iowa State fans can vividly remember games where conservative game plans apparently cost us wins. I'd agree that there were several. That said, maybe 4 times in 12 years isn't that often, and people forget that. They also fail to remember or discuss the times where his game management WON games for us. It's a selective memory thing. He won more games for us than he lost due to "play calling", trust me. As and aside... I always get a kick out of people on message boards bemoaning "stupid play calling". What does that mean? It means the play didn't work for some reason, and 90% of the time it doesn't work because somebody on the offense jacked something up. The play call was good, the execution bad. The OC or HC could have an ideal call in a certain situation called and the center blocks the wrong person. "The OC or HC sucks. He can't call plays". You'll also notice that most diatribes about play calling come when their team just got beat by a better team, ergo fewer plays work. The nature of message board fans i guess.

Here's a thread on Cyclone Fanatic about Dan Mac and your recruiting class in general. I thought you guys might be interested in some opinions. http://www.cyclonefanatic.com/forum/general-college-sports/113519-mccarneys-first-recruiting-class.html

As far as I know, he'd have two years to play. He took a medical hardship this past year. Got a concussion in spring ball and was never "cleared". He wasn't going to play so our staff held him out in order to get his year back. I don't know what sort of transfer rules apply in a situation like this.

Hey guys, i thought you might find this interesting... One of the backup runningbacks is looking to transfer from Iowa State to somewhere he can play more. He's more of a power back and we went to more of a spread offense. Below came from his Facebook: >>>KEEPING IT 1000.. FB FAM!!! I AM TRANSFERING TO A DIFFRENT SCHOOL TO GET MY MASTERS AND ALSO TO PLAY BALL FOR 2 MORE YRS WERE SHOULD I GO?? UCONN, USF, OREGAN, NORTH TX, BATHUNE COOKMAN, OR STANDFORD?? MMMMM CAN Y'ALL HELP ME OUT MAKING MY CHOICE FRIDAY!! P.S. THINKING BOUT UCONN JUST TO PLAY ISU AGAIN OOOWWWEE WILL BE FUN BUT I LIKE BATHUN...E COOKMAN I CAN REALLY BE THE MAN THERE!!! HELP<< He's a really talented guy, and a good kid. Just didn't fit our offense. He'd be a great guy for Mac to get. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/player-Bo-Williams-49336 EDIT*** Rivals 4 star running back signed by Florida out of High School

Pffftt... this is the view from my office window. You Texans and your crazy driving on ice... yikes!

I'm certainly going to try. This looks like it's going to get real fun for you guys real soon. I had such a good time witnessing the remarkable turnaround Mac orchestrated at I-State - I want to live it again The optimism you guys have now is catchy, and not unwarranted. I remember the feeling well. Seriously... good stuff. Anyway, we have away games the following weekends (so i won't have a game in Ames): 9/17 at UConn 10/8 at Baylor 10/15 at Missouri 10/29 at Texas Tech 11/12 at Oklahoma 11/26 at Kansas State When will your schedule get finalized. I'd be able to get down to a game on any of these weekends.

I'm sporting the Mean Green up here in northern Iowa... It's a good conversation starter for sure. Hawk fans remember the Hayden Fry connection, so i'm sure with Mac down there now you will have more than one Iowan (me) following the progress.

Posted in a different thread. Re-posted here for relevance. Mac at I-State was really open to letting the OC run their offense. He was pretty hands off. That is one reason I wasn’t shocked he kept Canales. At I-State he had a hard time keeping offensive coordinators because they were getting hired away for more money, so he let the guys come in and do their thing with very little meddling from him. Some of our best offenses were pro-set style with a good running game and a solid (if not spectacular) QB. Expect to see Dunbar featured prominently… Mac is completely of the mindset that running the ball is a MUST… that said if what Canales wants to run works, Mac won’t meddle with it. At least he didn’t at Iowa State. We ran different offenses under 3 different coordinators, each distinctly different and working in different ways, all with success under Mac. Defensively, he is most certainly a bend but don’t break guy. I have heard him speak at camps and other engagements about various aspects of defense, and his main theme is… Don’t beat yourself… Make the other team beat you if they can. Basically, at the college level, a lot of things need to go right for a team to put a 16 play scoring drive together, so make them do just that. Sooner or later, more often than not, they will drop a pass, commit a penalty, turn the ball over, etc. The more snaps you make them take, the more chances there are for them to screw something up. If you give up 3 play, 32 second, 76 yard TD drives, obviously you aren’t making them work for it. There isn’t the opportunity for your defense to make a play because they are only on the field for 3 snaps. Against typical college competition, the offense will muff something more often than the defense will in a bend but don’t break system. This scheme has problems with the really elite teams that have the skill to put long drives together over and over, but the vast majority of college teams don’t have this. UNT won’t see any in the SBC and Iowa State only saw maybe 2 (if that) a year in the Big 12.

RV said that? I'm not doubting you, it just seems like a totally crazy thing to say... wow... If the MWC asks UNT to join, is RV gonna say "no thanks"??? Is that what he is implying? Yeesh...

I dont understand why you guys think the BCS is the devil. Go back to the old bowl system, and there is no chance any non-AQ team plays in any of the BCS bowls (BYU back in the 80s ONCE in history notwithstanding). Boise and TCU have recently played in (and won) bowls they would never have had the opportunity to play in under the old system. Non-AQ conferences may have had teams more than worthy of playing in these bowls in the past, but there was zero chance they got the opportunity. The BCS actually forces these bowls to take them. You dont think the Rose Bowl would have taken Stanford in lieu of TCU if given the choice? This bumps every team in TCUs (or Boises) conference up a rung on the bowl ladder. Thus, the BCS system benefits non-AQ conferences more than the old system did. Yet most of you want the BCS system to be abolished? Ok then, we dont want the old bowl system (agree?). We should to go to a playoff where every conference winner gets seeded and they all play for the national title. This gives every conference an opportunity to put a school up for a shot at the title, right? Is this fair to all involved? Well I suppose it would be fair, but does it really improve the chances a non-AQ school like TCU or Boise would win the title? No. Lets say there are all 11 conference champs, plus one wildcard that get into the playoff. The top two seeds in each bracket get first round byes and games are played in the home stadiums of the higher seeded teams. That would mean that a team like TCU, Boise, North Texas, Iowa State, or whoever would not only have to win the conference, but then would have to win at a minimum 3 more games against other conference champs to win the title. As it is now, TCU (or Boise, etc.) only has to go undefeated (most likely) against their normal schedule. Then they get a month to prepare for one game. Win that game and you are champs. The fact that TCU got left out of the championship this year sucks for them, but I have yet to see any argument other than the BCS is rigged that convinces me TCU should have replaced either Auburn or Oregon. Besides, this argument is going to happen anyway with a playoff, as seeding would be VITALLY important to teams chances. There would be just as much vitriol and debate about seeding as we see now in the BCS rankings. Soooo, considering the above, why is the BCS so terrible? From my perspective it is a pretty good system. It actuality benefits the little guy more than it hurts us. Conference TV packages are another deal, but until teams like TCU, Boise, and Iowa State start to draw fans and national followings, we are going to be slighted by the media. TV ratings and bowl games cater to the masses. Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, etc., have enough fan equity built up that they are desired by the bowls and media alike. If UNT or Iowa State had the historical fan appeal and gate draw these teams have, no doubt there would be more desire to have teams like us in the major bowls. These big time teams get the preferential nod because they draw. Right or wrong they have earned the attention they get due to their salability. Get Iowa State or North Texas where they are and wed get the same treatment. Its all about money. There isnt a way around it. THAT is what makes the system a popularity contest. That said; the BCS is a pretty good deal for teams from non-AQ conferences that can win. Lemme ask you guys this. Would you guys prefer to have UNT win the Sun Belt, go to a mid-tier bowl, and kick some poor hapless MAC teams ass, or travel to Columbus and get curb stomped to end the season? As an Iowa State fan, give me the Alamo bowl against Illinois over an ass kicking by USC any day of the week. We have enough ass kickings on the schedule every year to suit my taste.

Big 10 is going to a 9 game conference schedule. Iowa plays Iowa State in the non-conference every year and that contract is being re-negociated (or dropped all together) due to both teams going to 9 game schedules in the future. Each team, Iowa and ISU need 7 home games minimum. We both can't get that playing each other home/home in the non-conference as well as playing a 9 game conference slate. Cyclone fans have been debating the merits of this ad nauseum. We know what we are talking about on this one. Anyway, I don't know what year the 9 game thing starts for the Big 10, but it's coming. The Big 10 has no advantage over the Big 12 when it comes to Notre Dame, other than the history of the rivalries. Ohio State would outshine them in the Big 10 just as easily. My money is on them joining a conference as a scheduling necessity when the Big 10 goes to a nine game schedule. Of course teams would schedule them for the sell out, but they wouldn't be marquee teams in AQ conferences. Teams like Alabama, Oklahoma and Ohio State make enough extra money they don't NEED the sell out. It's not worth the potential loss.

Interesting question. It is my firm belief that “mega” conferences are not likely to happen, at least not on the scale the media likes to put forth. There are way too many drawbacks relative to the positives. Smaller conferences, like the MAC or CUSA, might very well expand to 16 teams, but existing AQ conferences are unlikely to do so. The main reason for any conference to expand is to increase the TV revenue generated by demand to watch member schools athletic events. Conferences like the MAC or CUSA would add value by expanding into new markets. The additional TV revenue from more conference coverage will offset the decrease in money each school gets due to dividing the pie by more schools. This would be a net gain in the long run. The MWC adding UNT would be a great example of this. The Dallas (Texas in general) TV market adds more value to the conference than UNT would take away. Net gain all around. On the other hand, the Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12 and SEC already have immensely rich TV contracts. Each member schools would LOSE money by adding teams. The Big 12 actually gained net worth for each school by losing Colorado and Nebraska. The Denver (and Nebraska) TV markets were lost, but that is more than made up for by dividing the remaining pie by two less teams. How would the Big 10 get to 16 teams or so and still add value to each school’s bottom line? I suppose they could poach teams from other conferences… but that is still dependent on getting the right teams. Obviously, Texas, USC, Ohio State, Alabama, etc., would add value and increase the net income for a conference able to add them. The trouble is, all of those schools are in very favorable positions as it stands. There is little to no motivation to move. Texas proved that this past summer. Non-marquee schools like Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, Washington, or Kansas State wouldn’t bring enough additional TV revenue to any conference to be worth dividing the TV money into more slices. Another thing to consider is the changing landscape of media in general. As time goes by, TV will be less and less important for coverage of college sports in general. We are seeing that at Iowa State now. Every event (men’s basketball, football, wrestling, etc.) is streamed online for a subscription fee if not picked up by the Big 12 TV network. This fundamental shift in availability will put WAY more emphasis on how people actually WATCH the games, not how many people live in the coverage footprint. Advertisers (who pay the TV contract money) are really more interested in number of eyeballs on TV sets (or online streams) than eyeballs living in a city that never even see their ads. Iowa State alums living in Miami could subscribe to the Big 12 network stream despite not being in the “footprint” of the conference. There is a lot of talk about adding this market or that market, but if nobody in said city (Denver for example) actually watches the games or even cares about the nearby college there is zero net gain for the TV network. Big 12 is seeing this with Colorado. The Pac 12 kind of got screwed in the whole alignment deal. Colorado jumped to make sure they weren’t left out when Texas et al. jumped. They basically wanted to beat Baylor to the punch and not be left out. When Texas didn’t go, the Pac 12 was left with an extra school that didn’t bring squat to the table and were force to add Utah to balance things out. They ended up having to divide the pie by two more schools who don’t add as much value as they take away in TV revenue.

This is exactly the truth Very, very well said my friend.

If ND joins a conference it will be the Big 12. As was stated earlier, the Big 12 allows their own TV deal, has unequal revenue sharing, etc. They would have everything they have now, and then some. One thing people keep overlooking about this thing is that Notre Dame will have to fill a schedule. All of these traditional rivalry games may not be possible going forward with BOTH the Big 10 and Pac 12 going to 9 game conference slates. Now teams like Michigan State, USC, Michigan, and such will be forced to drop a non-con game. Conventional wisdom says that with the added conference games, these schools won't keep playing ND. Strength of schedule and bowl eligibility issues... Why should they keep the ND game? Nostalgia? If it comes down to going to bowl games regularly or keeping nostalgia alive, bowl games will win. If ND joined the Big 12, they'd completely alleviate any of their scheduling problems PLUS be in an AQ conference (most likely in the North) they would have a reasonable shot at winning. In addition, they are free to broker any TV deal they want... AND keep all the cash (exactly what they have now). It's a win/win. Frankly, I'm not sure why they wouldn't want to join, other than because they are stubborn. Texas ain't going anywhere now that they are burning c-notes to light their cigars... they certainly aren't going independent... see the Notre Dame argument above, same thing applies. Only ND has the benefit of a national RELIGIOUS following. They are a nationwide sellable product. Texas... no offense to you Texans... but nobody really cares outside of Texas for the most part. They are interesting to college football fans because they are a player on the national stage, but seriously, would any of you tune in to Trojan TV, or Roll Tide TV? I wouldn't. The only reason I'd watch Bevo is because we play them. Anyhoo... to sum it up. Big 12 - not going to die Notre Dame - not going to join a conference other than the Big 12 (if they join a conference) Texas - Has more money than God USC - sucks donkey parts Oklahoma is announcing the formation if it's own TV network... Big 12 north schools are in talks to team up and produce their own TV thing... Everybody's happy... Everybody has more money than before… Nebraska and Colorado are gone… Things are good… This Big 12 disintegration talk makes no sense.

Ahhh... That makes perfect sense. I told you I was ignorant... hehehe My concern is that no matter what you guys do in the SBC, you'll be fighting a conference perception problem. Most college football fans are about as in tune to the nuances you pointed out as I am. Which is basically zero. Believe me, you guys are going to get tired of arguing with people on behalf of the SBC. You are going to be telling guys like me what's what forever... it's an image issue that will be hard to shake. Based on what you told me above, I'd agree that the WAC is not a place you want to be.

Hehehe... yea, probably won't go well... but it is what it is. Just throwing out my opinion, for better or worse. Not right or wrong, just throwing it out there...

I understand what you are saying. If UNT wants to be a regional school to keep costs down and be more friendly as far as fan travel goes, that's their perogative. BUT... What is good for the fans isn't necessarily good for the school. These aren't mutually exclusive, but they certainly don't align all the time. Fans travelling to the games is trumped by playing in a more prestigous conference. Besides, fans don't travel well to away games in ANY conference... some do more than others, but to worry about that as a hinderance to moving up on the food chain is self limiting in my opinion. As far as exposure goes... i'm not sure I understand where you are going with that. You have such fertile recruiting ground right in your own back yard, what more exposure do you need? Win in the MWC and recruits in TEXAS will want to play for UNT. You can win with Texans. It's not like you'd start recruiting Ohio or Kentucky if you joined CUSA, or in Idaho or Utah in the MWC. Your recruiting base will stay the same no matter what conference you are in. It's not like you are a non-regional recruiter in the SBC now. If Mac can get the better guys in your own backyard to sign with UNT you can win in ANY conference. That to me is more beneficial to the UNT athletics department and would make the fan base happier than going into a lesser conference so that fans can travel to away games easier. This whole mongolian cluster boink of TV deals that drives the NCAA is certainly going to expand into on-line packages, streaming, etc. Worrying about conference "footprint" for TV deals will be obsolete soon. UNT will get plenty of exposure in the MWC when you are kicking ass and taking names. This would be a better scenario than being in CUSA or SBC and kicking ass there.

I don't know how to say this without coming across as an arrogant *ss... and have tried and tried re-typing it, but to no avail. When Dan McCarney was hired at UNT I had no idea what conference you were in. I had to look up the SBC just to see what schools are in it. You should get out of the SBC if the WAC offers again. There is only so much respect that can be earned in the SBC, even by winning every game by 50 points. The WAC may or may not be a better football conference than the SBC, but the level of respect for the SBC will still be less than a re-vamped WAC on name alone. EVERY college football fan knows about the WAC... the SBC... not so much. The WAC name alone is a bump up in the college football pecking order. As an average Joe football fan, your program will get noticed more in the WAC than they will in the SBC even winning it consistently. Ask yourself this... Is there ANY school in the SBC that would accept a WAC invite if offered? If the answer to that is yes, you should know what UNT's answer should be if asked again. Get out of the SBC... bottom line from an impartial observer with no dog in this fight. I may be totally wrong, ignorant, misinformed, have completely ridiculous pre-concieved notions of the SBC, be an AQ elitist homer, etc., but it doesn't matter. Unfortunately perception is reality, and I guarantee that most other football fans with no rooting interest in either conference feel like i do. The WAC trumps the SBC on name alone.

The first criteria when determining what conference is best for UNT is distance to other conference schools? CUSA definately has this going for it. That said, if the most defining reason for joining a conference is travel distance... maybe major conference football isn't for UNT in the first place. Lemme ask you this... Lets say UNT joins CUSA and wins every game... has an undefeated season. Would that be more impressive than running the table in the MWC? Which conference is more impressive to win? The answer to those questions should tell you what conference is better for UNT. At the very least, you would have had to beat Boise to win the MWC. That right there is reason to prefer a MWC invite over a CUSA invite. If the eventual goal is to get into an AQ conference, the MWC is the place to be. The opportunity to play higher profile conference teams is there, not CUSA...

I totally disagree with the national exposure comment. As a nonpartisan observer, I’d say that the MWC carries more “prestige” nationally than CUSA does. Given both as an option as UNT president I would sign with the MWC no questions asked. My perception may not reflect the actual quality of football, but if somebody were to ask me which conference was a “better” football conference I’d say the MWC without hesitation. I’d venture to say that most people who don’t have a rooting interest in either conference feel the same. All this talk of the MWC and its potential AQ status this summer during all of the re-alignment talk probably influences my thinking quite a bit. There was zero such talk of CUSA in this manner. Even though TCU left, that AQ discussion sticks in peoples heads and the MWC is benefiting from it even now. Believe me… during all of the Armageddon talk among Big 12 fans, I was preparing myself for the worst. We Iowa State fans were hoping to get a Big East invite if the Big 12 folded (which looks like it would have happened). Universally, we would have hoped for a MWC invite over any other conference not named the Big 10. What is UNT’s stance on accepting partial qualifiers? One of the things you guys seem to be overlooking when discussing the “rise” of Boise State is their entrance requirements. They can take an unlimited number of partial qualifiers, while the Big 12, Big 10 and Pac 12 schools cannot (don’t know the specifics, but I think Big 12 schools get 1 partial qualifier for football). There are a hell of a lot of good west coast players that can’t get into USC, Washington, Cal, etc. or any other AQ school for that matter. Boise can take AQ quality players without as much recruiting competition. If UNT accepts partial qualifiers like Fresno and Boise you will be able to kick the MWC’s ass. You guys would have by FAR the best recruiting territory covered and with the facility upgrades your infrastructure would be second to none. Your coaching staff is AQ both in experience and pay grade. Why would the MWC be after ANY CUSA schools, or UTSA or Texas State for that matter? That’s a serious question. I can’t think of a single reason UNT shouldn’t get the nod over these schools. Maybe you guys know something I don’t. Not having been immersed in the culture of UNT or other schools in question, I don’t really have any preconceived notions of “pecking order”, etc. Maybe that makes me naïve, but based on potential I see going forward there is no reason to NOT think of UNT in the same frame of mind as Colorado State, Air Force, New Mexico, etc. Seriously. Anyhoo... I like the conference discussions Sorry about the long post.

It could be worse... In the early 80's, Iowa State actually gave the players different color helmets... Good players got rewarded with a Gold helmet instead of a Cardinal one... Awesomely terrible... and yet fascinating...

Mac at I-State was really open to letting the OC run their offense. He was pretty hands off. That is one reason I wasn’t shocked he kept Canales. At I-State he had a hard time keeping offensive coordinators because they were getting hired away for more money, so he let the guys come in and do their thing with very little meddling from him. Some of our best offenses were pro-set style with a good running game and a solid (if not spectacular) QB. Wisconsin this year would be a pretty good example of what our best Iowa State offenses looked like. Expect to see Dunbar featured prominently… Mac is completely of the mindset that running the ball is a MUST… that said if what Canales wants to run works, Mac won’t meddle with it. At least he didn’t at Iowa State. We ran different offenses under 3 different coordinators, each distinctly different and working in different ways, all with success under Mac. If the guy’s offense puts points up, it’s good to go. Defensively, he is most certainly a bend but don’t break guy. I have heard him speak at camps and other engagements about various aspects of defense, and his main theme is… Don’t beat yourself… Make the other team beat you if they can. Basically, at the college level, a lot of things need to go right for a team to put a 16 play scoring drive together, so make them do just that. Sooner or later, more often than not, they will drop a pass, commit a penalty, turn the ball over, etc. The more snaps you make them take, the more chances there are for them to screw something up. If you give up 3 play, 32 second, 76 yard TD drives, obviously you aren’t making them work for it. There isn’t the opportunity for your defense to make a play because they are only on the field for 3 snaps. Against typical college competition, the offense will muff something more often than the defense will in a bend but don’t break system. This scheme has problems with the really elite teams that have the skill to put long drives together over and over, but the vast majority of college teams don’t have this. UNT won’t see any in the SBC and Iowa State only saw maybe 2 (if that) a year in the Big 12. Bend but don’t break defense gets frustrating to watch at times, but at the end of the game, only points on the board matter. It was always fun to hear Iowa fans brag about how they put up X number of yards on us and had Y number of first downs… they dominated the game… and yet, they still lost… they couldn’t understand it… five years in a row…

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=5998053 I thought you guys would enjoy this. This is beyond awesome...

Ok, I’ll try this again. Pretend the only thing different right now is the name on the uniform. TCU is Oregon and Oregon is TCU. Both are undefeated against the other’s schedule. My guess is that there wouldn’t be anybody here, or in the media for that matter, upset that Oregon didn’t get into the championship game. Take the names off of the uniforms and there isn’t enough to switch the teams. As you pointed out, the Realtime RPI is basically the same. Besides, according to your rankings Oregon played six road games against opponent’s average rank of 69.3 while TCU played five road games against opponents that averaged a rank of 82.2. This makes Oregon’s schedule tougher I don’t think Gordon Gee territory is anywhere close to being reached.

As I said, TCU is certainly a National Champion caliber team. I think Auburn and Oregon are as well. My point is that i don't think TCU is getting jobbed.