Monkeypox

still no point. nobody's forcing schools to participate in it. there are options to the BCS. this is simply about the trillionth thing they need to be worrying about.

But they do have a JOB, and it's not fiddling around with a how a meaningless game decides it's champion.

No, it doesn't NEED fixing. People NEED to eat. Our money NEEDS to count for something. We NEED healthcare. Addressing the state of college football isn't anywhere close to a NEED.

Is it TOO MUCH to ask? No. Is it unrealistic? Yes.

Yeah, I kinda thought that was the best way to put it. Maybe Vito is learning.

I'm just glad Congress is finally focusing on the real problems in this country.

Utah should not be in the National Title conversation. They play powderpuffs compared to the other teams. I wasn't making a suggestion for playoffs. I was telling you why playoffs fail to give you who the best team is, and that most of this whining comes from teams that have no business discussing a national championship bc they simply do NOT play against tough teams, and, if they did, would get their monkey asses handed to them. Do YOU think Utah or TCU or Boise State could come up with 4 out of 5 wins on a consistent basis vs. Oklahoma, Texas, Tech, Missouri, OSU? Well, if you wanna get a shot at a National Title, this is the kinda thing a team in the Big 12 has to do. They have to go into stadiums that pack 3 and 4 times what ours do and WIN, week-in, week-out. I'm just telling you what most of the country already thinks. They don't WANT to see Utah get their asses handed to them by a big team 90% of the time for the 10% of the time that they'll make a game of it. That's why every year they rank the games and shitty matchups are lambasted. There wasn't a whole lot of that Hawaii talk after they got their business handled by Georgia last year. And that's what happens. And to all the talk that it's about money... OF COURSE IT IS! Football is a business. That's why you buy tickets, concessions, etc. It's a revenue sport. And BOWLS exist, TELEVISION COVERAGE exists, media coverage exists NOT to support college athletics, but to make money. And a LOT more people will watch the big name teams matchup than they will the big underdog matchups.

The college basketball system rewards teams that get in against inferior competition and get hot at the right time. Well, it's a lot easier to get hot when you haven't had to get up for EVERY game like you would if you were in a power conference. At least in the NBA, you have to win a series. Now, college basketball is quite a different animal than football, since putting together a successful basketball team is much cheaper and easier and the distribution of power isn't as skewed. I know, I know, everyone loves a Cinderella, but if they had to play the top teams all season long or had to win in a series, 90% of them wouldn't be there.

And there's no way we SHOULD get a chance to play for a National Championship with the quality of opponents we have, even if we went undefeated for two years. Sure, it's unfair bc there's really no way to rectify the situation given conference structures, but the yearly complaining about the BCS is getting old. Sorry, we play in the Sun Belt. We have 2 or 3 games every year against top competition, and, EVEN if we went in there and won, it wouldn't be as worthy as the teams who have to do it all season long.

Yep. You absolutely HAVE to have a beast NT to run a 3-4 well. And you'd better have a line of them. And now your DEs have to be as large as strong as the DTs in your 4-3 defense. We've probably had one guy TRULY capable of playing that NT position like you need it for us to win consistently at the LOS since I've been following North Texas football (1994).

Auburn Fan 1: I hear they're looking at Todd Dodge. Auburn Fan 2: Todd who? Auburn Fan 1: Dodge. I think he's the coach at North Texas State Teacher's College or something. Auburn Fan 2: They have a football team? Auburn Fan 1: Apparently. Auburn Fan 2: Is he good or something? Auburn Fan 1: He's won 3 games in two years. Auburn Fan 2: How many do they play in the Directional Commuter Teacher's College Division? Auburn Fan 1: The same I think. Auburn Fan 2: Oh... well, that's a stupid idea then.

So because he did it before, he's not responsible for current performance? So now he doesn't have to coach another down of football? I believe in DeLoach, but I don't think you reward a guy for skins on the wall when his most recent experience is leading the worst defense in the history of forever. Now, on the other hand, the downside of all this is that now Dodge and DeLoach are relatively inexorably linked. For those clamoring for a new coach, keep in mind your boy DeLoach would likely be gone with the bathwater (unless, of course, he WERE said new HC). I don't know, but I think to an objective outsider the move of DeLoach to assistant HC after the defensive year we just had would be, if they even heard about it, just another reason to view this program as laughably, absurdly inept.

The elephant in the room being that you get rid of Dodge, do you believe that a new guy with no ties to NT and no history with DeLoach will keep him? Staffs are generally purged with new HCs, so with Dodge's exit, I believe DeLoach will be out. Not because he SHOULD be or because I want him to. That's just what happens.

They've got plenty of time since Troy refuses to run the ball.

well, that was some dumb playcalling in the 2nd half.

Troy needs to mount a drive.

We'll see if Troy can keep their offense up. LSU scored with little difficulty, 31-10. Game isn't over. C'mon, Troy!

The SMU-UNT rivalry is something that only exists in the mind of a few people on this board. They've worked hard over the years to create one with baiting and board-hopping, but for the most part, no one on either campus really gives a crap about the other. SMU's rival is TCU. We, sadly, don't have a true rival. I honestly think it's sad how people keep trying to MAKE this a rivalry.

If that defense was THAT experienced and talented, a new coach wouldn't come in and be able to turn them into garbage in a year. We have had very few, if any, NFL prospects on this team in a while, particular on defense. I heard a lot of "no excuses" last year. I don't consider letting Troy's 2nd string QB complete passes at will with little pressure or coverage to be a vast improvement. What, we now let people coast to 40 points now instead of roll up 60-70? I have no personal desire to see DeLoach quit. I am of the belief that he is a decent, if overrated in these parts, DC. BUT, if I had a job and was not allowed to do it in a manner to achieve success, and MY professional reputation was hinged on its performance, then I would have an ultimatum for my employers and, barring any changes, they would be seeing my resignation. I think something of that nature, while damaging to our program in the short-term, would FOR SURE spell it out for followers of the program where the issues lie. The reason for my questioning is that there was a very large contingency who would accept no excuses for last year's defensive performance, based on its complete futility. This year's defense is just as futile, and everyone comes out of the woodwork with statements of support. This defense is nothing to be pleased about.

He's had a lot of trouble making plays this year. He's had a big problem with pursuit angles and missed tackles. That's from watching the games. I like the kid, too, but I've been disappointed in his play thus far.

Agreed. Last year our defense was historically bad and I can't count the number of times I heard there was "NO EXCUSE!" for it. Well, our defense is just as bad this year, but there don't seem to be all the same cries about DeLoach. He HAS to take some responsibility in this, sadly. Now, I will assert the same things I did last year. That this "offense" puts the defense in bad positions with its inability to sustain drives. The only thing it does efficiently is go 3 and out. But you can't have the kind of venom for the DC last year and simply give DeLoach a pass. I've heard the excuse "maybe he's not allowed to do his job..." Well, that's too bad. If that's the situation then I would expect his resignation at the end of the season, bc a defense this bad will only serve to hurt his reputation. That would probably be the best thing for him as long as he's under a coach that ALLEGEDLY doesn't let him do his job. But I'm skeptical about all that. Regardless, wheels are definitely off of this thing, and, unless there's a miraculous sustainable turnaround, multiple heads must roll.

They had this offense figured out by mid-season last year. I think there are other spreads out there I MIGHT be a fan of, but this one, notsomuch. This is a team that needs to be able to put its identity into a toughness and physicality that just isn't present in this system. The Navy game that everyone likes to hang their hat on was against the only defense close to as terrible as ours. It's called an anomaly. Everyone pointed to our passing yards last year, and I continually suggested they were primarily put up between the twenties, our 3rd down percentages were generally terrible, and we rarely could sustain drives. "But look how high we're ranked in passing yards!" Blech.

Warren has been on the field this year, but his play has not been there. When talking about team missed tackles and positioning, his name should be at the top of the list for offenders. I'm happy to see him coming on late, but the reason someone says "where has he been?" it's because he's not been making plays, NOT because he's not been given his shot. NOW, I don't completely fault the kid, because it seems like they change his position and training requirements every year, and there's no way to gain a comfort level and confidence in what you're doing with that.

I think another thing this does is allow you to actually learn and implement things and give the athletes a better chance to execute things. Installing a new system against the likes of LSU and OU is like learning chess by playing against Deep Blue. Playing these money games lessens the kind of situational learning you practice all week. You get a lot of practice at 1st/2nd/3rd and long on offense, and a lot of practice at 1st and 10 on defense. For me, it's not even about opportunities for success or "gimme" games because I'm not sure there's any such thing for this team right now, but if we were at least able to start the year with some lesser opponents, I think our team would get a better understanding of running the offense and defense for themselves.

You want tough guys who are also big and fast and strong. I like an overachiever as much as the next guy, but you won't sustain wins with a team full of guys who don't have projectable size, speed, strength, etc. You'll get blown out by the big boys just like now. But, hey, in the short-term you can enjoy a few quality wins against Belt teams.