jdub27

Can you answer what my first post that you quoted has to do with that? Everyone and their mother saw a big drop-off coming after that senior class graduated. Again, it is easy to be loud and uninformed (or not care) when you aren't the one writing the checks or responsible for making a budget work. Just because others get that and comprehend how they apply to real life situations, doesn't mean they don't want change or are complacent, they just understand reality and would rather focus their current efforts on how to make the best of the current situation until it can be changed. I'm all for bringing in a big name coach or even a rising up-and-comer (that will come with a matching salary) to consistently dominate the Summit but there are a lot of hurdles overcome to make that happen. Wonder if there is a program just a bit south of here who is having the same regrets right now.

I'm not sure what your point is, it looks like I was pretty spot on with what I said. That team did exactly what I predicted, turning it around, going 12-6 from that day through the conference tournament andthen made it to the title game, where they lost to Weber on their home court while playing without multiple starters and the first guy off the bench (Brekke, Webb and Schuler). And that's not even mentioning the guys who were dinged up and still gutting through it. So my "opinion" on what would happen the rest of that season was actually lower than their actual results.

In general, people are clueless and it's easy to have opinions (especially those hot takes) when you aren't the one responsible for writing checking and balancing budgets. If people would take time to look into realities or talk with those making decisions, they would probably understand things a bit more. That doesn't mean they are accepting poor results or complacency, it means they understand how things actually work. I'm fully on board with a new coach after the season (or a few seasons ago) and bringing in a top candidate by offering a $300K salary, but it isn't going to happen and it isn't because people don't care, it's because of realistic expectations. Not sure what else there is to say about it.

Nah, didn't say anything even close to that. But I'm also not going to pretend that contract terms and "logic" don't exist. I'm sure it's easy to pretend we're in an alternate reality where those things don't play into decisions, but in the real world, they do. Fact is, the BB program is underfunded worse than the FB program. They are playing huge guarantee games just to increase their budget, which is still lagging. Look at the turnover in assistant coaches, how is that sort of instability good for any program? Saying "the money will come from somewhere" doesn't make it actually appear. Like I said, the coach will have this season to get his team on the right track (which I think they have the talent to make some noise once they figure it out) and next season to use that talent and prove himself again. I don't see a lame duck situation this time around. Just for reference on the dollar amounts we're talking (using 2016-17 numbers): The expense side of the MBB budget is $1.6 million with almost 25% of that being scholarships. Coaching pool (head coach plus assistants) was $357K (full disclosure, this has increased with Jones raise). To buy out the head coach fro the next two years, would require somewhere around $150K each for two years, which is almost 10% of the MBB budget (one could hope/assume he would get a new job to offset a portion of that, but there is no guarantee). On top of that, a new head coach plus assistants is going to require a significant increase in salary (for reference, Richman makes $190K, Craig Smith is at $275K and Otzelberger apparently makes $375K!!). So figure an at minimum, an additional $150K for the coaching pool just to get to a baseline Basically, just to do what you want, the MBB budget has to see an increase by around 20% out of thin air. This isn't a defense of the situation or being happy with results, it are the facts that the athletic director has to work with when making decisions.

Yeah, just a bit more complex than that but sounds a lot better when you just put it out like that right? The beginning of this year is turning out as expected when you unexpectedly lose a conference of the year type player a year early to grad transfer, your second best player has to sit out the first semester and you are trying to figure out a rotation with 11 guys who have never played a minute of D1 basketball. Other than a year or two, it seems like it is always something (conference, nickname, injuries, grad transfers, etc). Bad luck, coaching or a combination of that plus other things out of anyone's control, I'm not sure what the main issue is. Jones has 2 1/2 years left on his contract, he'll finish out this year and have an incredibly young team coming back next year that will have gained some valuable experience. Will be prove it time or it's likely someone will get to inherit a pretty veteran team.

Luckily, didn't have a chance to watch last night. Seems like right now there are too many guys playing as they try to figure out the right combinations and rotations, which I guess when you have 11 guys on the roster who have never played a minute of D-1 basketball, that is going to happen. I assume Marlon is back right as Summit play starts, which will be a positive from an experience standpoint and I guess the way it looks right now, won't be messing up any rhythm that seems to be working. But seriously, 29 TO's with 21 of them being steals? Do we not have anyone that can handle the ball on the team? Young guys not ready for the pressure? The three upperclassman had 17 of the 29. No clue what to think other than throw out whatever you were doing and move on.

#robbed

You're making my point for me. I didn't miss or assume anything, which is why I specifically put it in quotations that he had left the team and then indicated that he had prior off-field issues that the media hasn't mentioned at all. Klieman was the one that said it was a "mutual decision" and the media dutifully repeated reported that without bothering to ask any follow-up questions. But since you're clearly indicating that there is more to the story, we're all anxious to here why a top 3 WR is no longer with the team in the middle of a playoff run, because the Fargo media has no interest in it.

At least one instance that was enough to become public record, but obviously too much effort for the local media to look into or comment on even though they never miss a chance to publish negative information (allegedly). Haven't heard what the final straw was this time (nor will anyone "officially"), but I personally find it pretty strange someone would quit with only 3 games at most left in their career with a good shot at another title to top it off.

A top 3 WR for the defending champs "leaves" the team in the middle of a playoff run and the local media gives nothing more than a passing tweet on it. I mean I want to say I'm surprised but they also didn't bother mentioning any off the field trouble from the same player (or any others) when it happened or as a possible tie-in to the departure so I guess I'm not. But can we please hear more about how the media is so critical of their program and make sure every negative detail is talked about??

Well hopefully Danny is smart enough to pull incompletions and interceptions out of the playbook....

Not saying your wrong but who did you want to take touches away from this year to get him 8 a game? For the record, he had 8 touches vs. Montana, 6 vs. Sac St and 5 in two other games, but didn't score a TD all season. Don't get me wrong, I think he's got great potential over the next three years, but let's pump the brakes a little bit. Danny knows what he was with CM, guessing he'll find ways to get him the ball in space.

Either way, Bubba stated the OC was going to have significant input into the hiring of the OL (and now WR coach). I'm not sure why you'd be up in arms about a "hand-picked" candidate. That's how pretty much how hiring an assistant coach goes. They will still get applicants that don't have previous connections with but guessing when you're job is on the line, you're going to go with someone you feel you can put your trust in rather than a completely unknown commodity.

I'm being realistic with getting him the ball on the plays that were actually called (with that being a separate argument that we agree on). McKinney getting the ball on a jet sweep was effective pretty much all year yet we didn't run it a single time against PSU. The frustrating thing is there were quite a few of the plays that everyone was clamoring for being called against NAU (play-action, screens, TE passes) but it didn't matter since NAU was in the backfield the whole game.

While I'm not sure why it's not posted, you can lay off the conspiracy theories. There are various state hiring laws that have to be followed. If I had to guess, Danny has a few people in mind and he's in contact with them, feeling out their interest. Once he has an idea who might be interested, the postings will made and tailored to make sure those people are qualified to apply.

Likely adding 2 more. Can't go wrong with 3 early home games for tailgating.

Not saying I disagree, particularly a jet sweep or two against PSU, but he was 5th on the team in touches behind Brady, John, JJ and Wanzek.

Agree on the D2 game, just being selfish for an extra week to tailgate likely early in the season. Possible on the budget thing, but you're basically paying $100K in 2019 for a free home game in a future year instead of paying at least 1.5x in a later year to get a home game. Like I said, I get the reasoning they are using, just don't personally agree with it. I just hope we aren't sitting at 6-5 at the end of the year wishing we would have had one extra D-1 win to add to the win column.

I get their reasoning, I just don't agree with it, especially with the upcoming schedule. Getting another OOC D1 game that is winnable could mean quite a bit come selection time.

I'd take both to have an extra home game next season. First choice of course would be the away half of a home/home with a decent team to set up a return home game in the future. Still dumbfounded they are pretty much set on 11 games instead of 12 next season.

Mentioned by @geaux_sioux (possibly as a quasi-joke), but I actually wouldn't be surprised to see this name come up. https://rmucolonials.com/coaches.aspx?rc=1094&path=football

Wonder what Jody is in Nashville for....

So the OC gets no credit when they are getting those 5+ yards a carry, only when they don't? Guess I"m not following that logic. Obviously the ability to not do it at the end of the year cost him his job but the OL and run game were both working well the first half of the year. Don't know what the underlying issues are as the season went on, but the guys who's job it was to figure it out and fix it, couldn't and are looking for new jobs. Plenty of blame to go around in the ISU game, especially when the defense gives up 597 yards. If UND doesn't fumble into the end zone in the first half, that game ends differently.

Take a look at the actual stats. The offense's identity was the running game and that was working well (and those numbers don't adjust for QB sacks that are included in rush yards). It didn't start to go off the rails until Weber and never recovered. MVSU - 518 yards, 6.5 yards/play (293 rushing, 5.9/carry) UW - 301 yards, 4.6 yards/play (182 rushing, 5.5/carry) SHSU - 376 yards, 5.1 yards/play (187 rushing, 4.2/carry) ISU - 469 yards, 6.0 yards/play (245 rushing, 6.1/carry) UNC - 474 yards, 6.2 yards/play (351 rushing, 5.8/carry) UM - 536 yards, 6.9 yards/play (282 rushing, 5.3/carry) SSU. - 604 yards, 8.8 yards/play (480 rushing, 9.1/carry) Weber - 321 yards, 5.6 yards/play (105 rushing, 3.8/carry) Idaho - 335 yards, 4.3 yards/play (172 rushing, 3.7/carry) PSU - 222 yards, 4.0 yards/play (122 rushing, 3.1/carry) NAU - 192 yards, 2.7 yards/play (83 rushing, 2.0/carry)