Dodge & Co. Report Card For 2007

[good_ken]

The objective is to win...therefore 2 wins = F

So to be consistent, you graded 2001 an F (5-7 record and lost a bowl game)?

You also graded the last 2 years an F also?

Out of curiosity, what's an A? 6 wins? 12 wins?

[RETSO]

2-10 = F

10-12 wins = A

7-9 wins = B

4-6 wins = C

0-3 wins =F

5-7 would be a C

[Daddy Dumpsalot]

I agree with DallasGreen. We aren't grading based on expectation, we're grading on results. Who could argue that the season wasn't bad? No one. Yes, our future may look good but we're grading this past season, nothing else. Was it fun, yes. Was it exciting, yes. Was it a good team, no. I don't think saying that is being a downer and deserves have a smiley face head chopped off. I just think it's being honest.

Well put. I gagree 100%. I am excited about what the future holds but quite disappointed about this past season (ie, the AKst loss). I think our offense crubled at the end of the season and our defense crumbled before the season started. I also have changed my stance on getting rid of Mendoza....after talking with a defensive player on the team he informed me about what the team thinks about this guy and his coaching, or lack thereof.

[Monkeypox]

Grades are results based, relative to the objectives set forth at the beginning...

I don't believe grades are relative. If you expect a kid to have trouble understanding the material, and they earn an F, you don't give them a C.

At the beginning of the season, I expected 3 or 4 wins. I wasn't drinking any kool-aid. I was the one who said it would get worse before it gets better. None of that effects the grades, which are based solely on performance.

[good_ken]

I don't believe grades are relative. If you expect a kid to have trouble understanding the material, and they earn an F, you don't give them a C.

At the beginning of the season, I expected 3 or 4 wins. I wasn't drinking any kool-aid. I was the one who said it would get worse before it gets better. None of that effects the grades, which are based solely on performance.

From your example, you imply that you have a set criteria for what an F or a C is, right? Those objectives are set out beforehand. To continue to sue this example, some profs call an A 100%-90% while others call it 100%-85%. They tell you this up front (most of the time).

That is my point. What is the criteria (the season's objectives) that folks set up last March or July? You grade the performance based on those criteria. I think some folks have changed criteria as teh season went on, based on emotion or other factors.

[Monkeypox]

From your example, you imply that you have a set criteria for what an F or a C is, right? Those objectives are set out beforehand. To continue to sue this example, some profs call an A 100%-90% while others call it 100%-85%. They tell you this up front (most of the time).

That is my point. What is the criteria (the season's objectives) that folks set up last March or July? You grade the performance based on those criteria. I think some folks have changed criteria as teh season went on, based on emotion or other factors.

The season's objective should never be anything less than winning the conference. That will probably earn you a B. If you want an A from me, you'd better have 9 wins or more, most likely. Now, there are other criteria, obviously, since this grading is certainly more subjective than one you would have in a class, and we're grading across a number of areas. So in that way, there's not a single way, for me at least, to state the objectives. I can say you can probably earn a C winning 5-6 games, but it will depend on how you score in all those other areas. And a C doesn't mean you met expectations, either. Did you lose on a hail mary? Did the team perform well overall and just not be able to close out? I mean, who can ACTUALLY grade our recruiting and "intangibles" in any objective way? So while there's easily room for that subjectivity, I don't think you can just say, "Alright, I didn't expect our team to win a single game. They won two, though, so they get an A+++."

And again, my EXPECTATIONS for this team were almost met. The OBJECTIVES I had for them appeared unreachable before they ever set the field. Just because a C student gets a C, that doesn't mean they achieved the objective. The REAL objective every year is to go undefeated.

Edited January 1, 2008 by Monkeypox

[SilverEagle]

Well put. I gagree 100%. I am excited about what the future holds but quite disappointed about this past season (ie, the AKst loss). I think our offense crubled at the end of the season and our defense crumbled before the season started. I also have changed my stance on getting rid of Mendoza....after talking with a defensive player on the team he informed me about what the team thinks about this guy and his coaching, or lack thereof.

OK, so this fall, after we've blown another 19 or 21 point lead, who's turn is it to jump up and yell "we're gettin' out-coached".

I've already taken my turn.

[LoveMG]

I also have changed my stance on getting rid of Mendoza....after talking with a defensive player on the team he informed me about what the team thinks about this guy and his coaching, or lack thereof.

what did he say to make you change your opinion on the coaching.

[GoMeanGreen1999]

I thought for sure people would jump on giving out grades.

[greenminer]

I thought for sure people would jump on giving out grades.

Maybe I speak for myself here, but I'm tired of dwelling on a horrible season that ended 4 weeks ago.

[GoMeanGreen1999]

Maybe I speak for myself here, but I'm tired of dwelling on a horrible season that ended 4 weeks ago.

Understandable. Maybe should have been done 2 weeks ago, but I thought it was a good thread.

[FirefightnRick]

Maybe I speak for myself here, but I'm tired of dwelling on a horrible season that ended 4 weeks ago.

Me too.

Rick

[KingDL1]

Me too.

Rick

It really is time to dwell on recruiting, I think it is going to be some damn good hunting when it is all said and done.

Go Dodge!!!

Tony

[Guest 97and03]

It really is time to dwell on recruiting, I think it is going to be some damn good hunting when it is all said and done.

Go Dodge!!!

Tony

I saw that someone gave recruiting an A. I have to disagree.

Based upon prior UNT classes and against other SBC, WAC, CUSA, and MAC, the recruiting is good to excellent. But take a look at the next level up, TCU for example, and one can see that UNT still has a ways to go. (I won't even touch on schools like USC or Texas. That conversation needs to wait for a few years.)

I am VERY excited about the recruits that are coming in. They are clearly the best that UNT has had in a long, long time.

But no A's should be handed out until that recruiting list shows 3-stars as the baseline and several 4 and 5-star players.

[Mean Green 93-98]

But no A's should be handed out until that recruiting list shows 3-stars as the baseline and several 4 and 5-star players.

Some of the best recruiting schools in the country don't have any 5-star players. http://rivals100.rivals.com/teamrank.asp?SID=880

I don't think anybody who gives recruiting an "A" is trying to put us in the same class with USC. It is obvious that we are lacking a cohesive standard to hand out grades, so you can argue about it until your face turns blue--won't do any good.

[Guest 97and03]

Some of the best recruiting schools in the country don't have any 5-star players. http://rivals100.rivals.com/teamrank.asp?SID=880

I don't think anybody who gives recruiting an "A" is trying to put us in the same class with USC. It is obvious that we are lacking a cohesive standard to hand out grades, so you can argue about it until your face turns blue--won't do any good.

But blue is my favorite color!

I guess my point is that of the top 50 recruiting classes, all but 2 have at least 1 4-star recruit. And the two programs that don't, have 10 3-star recruits.

I think a top-50 recruiting class would be pretty nice!

And as I said, I like this class alot! No real complaints, just thinking ahead!

Edited January 2, 2008 by 97and03

[emmitt01]

Based upon prior UNT classes and against other SBC, WAC, CUSA, and MAC, the recruiting is good to excellent. But take a look at the next level up, TCU for example, and one can see that UNT still has a ways to go.

Really? I think you should rethink your standard then. According to rivals I'd call it even at worst.

TCU's current verbals

No signed LOI's

4 3* commits

7 total commits

Average star rating of 2.57

NT current verbals

18 total commits (Two already with signed LOI's)

5 3* commits (1 already with LOI)

Average star rating of 2.27

Given that we came off of a 2-10 season, and TCU just came off of a bowl win the recruting grade of A...given that everyone signs...is about right.

Edited January 2, 2008 by emmitt01

[Guest 97and03]

Really? I think you should rethink your standard then. According to rivals I'd call it even at worst.

TCU's current verbals

No signed LOI's

4 3* commits

7 total commits

Average star rating of 2.57

NT current verbals

18 total commits (Two already with signed LOI's)

5 3* commits (1 already with LOI)

Average star rating of 2.27

Given that we came off of a 2-10 season, and TCU just came off of a bowl win the recruting grade of A...given that everyone signs...is about right.

You are correct. Apparently when I was browsing last month, I ended up looking at TCU's 2007 class, which was pretty nice and included a 4 star recruit. Apologies for the mistaken info.

I still don't like the idea or grading on a curve though. Giving our recruiting an A is really kind of like saying that our recruiting is excellent considering it is UNT and we sucked this year. Which is accurate. As I said, I really like this class so far! But I am still reserving the A grade for the future.

And speaking of Rivals rankings...

How is our class rated at 70 while LaTech is at 65? We have 5 3-star recruits and a 2.28 avg stars rating, while they have 3 3-star recruits and a 2.23 avg stars rating. I see that they have more "points" than UNT, but how? Can someone explain what that means or how the points are computed? They have fewer players committed and signed and fewer quality recruits. Add Temple or Tulane to that question as well.

[H-towngreen]

How is our class rated at 70 while LaTech is at 65? We have 5 3-star recruits and a 2.28 avg stars rating, while they have 3 3-star recruits and a 2.23 avg stars rating. I see that they have more "points" than UNT, but how? Can someone explain what that means or how the points are computed? They have fewer players committed and signed and fewer quality recruits. Add Temple or Tulane to that question as well.

I had a post a while back asking the same thing. I even wrote an e-mail to Rivals asking, but never got anything back. I say screw it I am pronouncing us as having the 65th best recruiting class thus far.

[LongJim]

Overall: B-

Recruiting has improved a ridiculous amount. Sick. Will get even better with TD's commitment/connection to HS coaches state-wide. This is the most important aspect of the college game, and TD hammered a home run last year, and this year so far.

Game play: Meh. I pretty much thought 4-8, but the defense was unbelievable.

Which brings me to the handling of the 'coaching changes'. This, so far, has been handled as it should have been, IMO. Things are really looking up for this program. I believe there will be a leaps and bounds improvement this season.

"Stay the course." "Keep the faith." "<insert your lame cliche here>"

[NT80]

And speaking of Rivals rankings...

How is our class rated at 70 while LaTech is at 65? We have 5 3-star recruits and a 2.28 avg stars rating, while they have 3 3-star recruits and a 2.23 avg stars rating. I see that they have more "points" than UNT, but how? Can someone explain what that means or how the points are computed? They have fewer players committed and signed and fewer quality recruits. Add Temple or Tulane to that question as well.

Points deducted for being a member of the SunBelt ??