UNT86

He was not the problem at FIU. The problem at FIU was a Star safety that didn't tackle anyone. Our defense lost that game. Stone will be fine as a QB, but we still need more talent and depth at the position.

Looks like we have a D2 TE coming from Central Oklahoma, Oscar Hammond

Coming out of HS had offers from Texas and Notre Dame. These are the portal transfers we should be targeting. P5 offers! Now do defense.

Looks like RB Zach Evans is transferring to UNT from Minnesota. He is originally from Rockwall Heath. He had 230 yards on 52 carries last year.

Some observations 1) Turnovers don't seem to concern Coach B. He wants to continue put pressure on the opposition and that is just part of it. Alway a "next play" attitude. 2) He plays the same style up 20 or down 15. This is who we are. We run and run and run. Constant pressure and tempo. 3) Everyone has a role and a way to contribute. He plays 12 every game. 4) Getting the other team in foul trouble is part of the strategy. Make them play people significant minutes that they never intended to play. 5) Free throws are part of the game plan, and we make lots of them.

La Tech is right behind them. Once really good G5 teams.

This looks just like Mason Fine's senior season. We can score some, but we cannot stop anyone. I expect a similar result.

We have them in Lubbock next year.

I would take them ANY day over SMU. Please let this happen. Our conference will be stronger for the exchange.

As a coach, I would never expect this to be called. It is normal and part of any game. The only exception would be if it was unnecessary roughness or malicious. This did not appear to be either. As an official, I would not call this unless it was clear to both players that the ball had long been gone. From this video, these are just two guys in the trenches. Nothing to see here. Next play. I would not call anything here or expect anything to be called.

That offer of $20 million was for a conference that included Washington and Oregon. Without those two, that offer will drop significantly. Few out west will tune in to Stanford vs SMU instead of Washington, Oregon, UCLA, or USC vs any other Big 10 opponent. Stanford and Cal will not drive anything, nor will SMU and Rice. I would bet any new conference including Stanford and Cal would net at most $10 million since they marquee matchups would be gone. Is the difference between $7 million in the AAC and $10 million they might get be enough to incur the extra travel for your non-revenue sports? I'll pass.

None of them are going to the ACC. If they had that kind of value, they would have been invited long ago by someone else. Cal and Stanford aren't going either. Same song. If they had that kind of value, they would have been invited to the Big 10 or have been offered a better deal.

Again, if they want to go to the ACC I will laugh at them on they way out the door. Florida St and Clemson are going to take all the money in a new tv deal and the travel will kill the Geldings. They will be Colorado in 10 years and begging to come back.

Just thinking that unless Cal, Stanford, Washington State, and/or Oregon State swallow a lot of pride and join the WAC, that each of them may be looking for 5 games just to fill the schedule. They can still play the non-conference they have contracted and play each other for 3 of the remaining 8 games. After that, what? So, do we bump someone in an upcoming season to get them to come here? Do we even offer a return trip? Do we insist on playing in DATCU first? A lot of dominoes still have to fall, but these guys could be in a lot of trouble just filling out a schedule (see NT 1995 for reference).

Maybe some of those sports could become club sports? That is what the rest of us do. Maybe they could drop some men's sports so they can remain Title IX compliant? It will all be fine. Maybe some day you can bring those sports back....

I feel zero sadness for Cal, Stanford, Washington State, and Oregon State joining the MWC and getting their $4 million payout. They have had a "let them eat cake" attitude toward the rest of us from the beginning. Now, they just don't know how they will make it hosting Boise State and San Diego State. How will their fan base get excited? How will their Olympic sports get by? Lots of pearl clutching and hand wringing along the coast right now. I say thoughts and prayers boys. And welcome to the world all the rest of us live in.

The scheme would work. The problem is recruiting kids to play in a physical, run based offense. Also, fans get really upset when you run the ball too much... even when you win. So, butts in the seats is also a factor. Scheduling is another factor. I coached at a school that ran a version of the wing bone including the triple option and the midline. We sometimes had a hard time scheduling non-district games because our offense was unique, physical, and hard to stop. We had to travel from Dallas to Huntsville and College Station at times just to fill our schedule. The scheme is still sound and hard to defend. Also, most guys that know how to defend are retired.

NT Athletics cannot paint a wall or drive a nail in the pit without approval from the academic side of the university. It is why the sound system has sucked for years and never gets any better. It is why major renovations are extremely difficult. Athletics has wanted a weight room for basketball in the Pit forever and finally got the university to let them have an old, unused racquetball court. It is way too small, but better than what they had. And yes, athletics has been bumped from using the pit. It happened a few years ago when our womens basketball had to play a home game at TWU because the university had scheduled another event in the Pit and it was unavailable for basketball. Academics gets first choice because it is their building. A little history lesson may help here. The Longhorns and Aggies built facilities with taxpayer money. After that, the laws were changed so that no other schools could do the same. To get around it, we built a "coliseum" and rent it to the athletic department at times for basketball. It was built with taxpayer money, so it cannot just be transferred to athletics. Ever wonder why the roof was brown for so long and didn't display any logo or name? It is silver now and would be a perfect place for LED North Texas that could be seen for miles. Wonder why athletics has not done that? Nothing is done to that place for the benefit of athletics. It is a tired argument because nothing has changed since we built it 50 years ago.

Nope. It is officially an academic building. Build a new arena and I'll be in favor of naming it. As long as athletics pays rent, no thanks.

White jerseys, white pants, white socks, white mouthpiece, white shoes. White out game. Will be one of two games we wear white at home. The other game will be when we wear the throwback apple green helmets from the 70's, possibly on homecoming.

Call Carl Evans in the Athletic Department. If he isn't the guy, he will know who is and be glad to help.

Peterbilt Motors

If SMU wants to join the "new" PAC 12, I'll hold the door for them. They will be like Colorado in ten years asking to come back.

Scheduling is a lot harder than most people think. Some people won't play you and many times you just don't have a fit with each other. I am always in favor of scheduling a home game we should win and I don't want to play P5 unless they agree to come to Denton (preferably first).

That kind of implosion is what it will take to change the current NIL model.